Epstein Secrets

g an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States.. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

subject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. I Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. I. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11

g an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States.. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

subject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. I Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. I. South Florida Water Management Dist, 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. I. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11

ited States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut the presumption is not high." United States v. Thompson, No. 16-CR-00019, 2018 WL 447331, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2018) (citation omitted). "Any evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a cat

rd prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 E.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida court's jurisdiction, a "trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the

ited States v. Jessup, 757 F.2d 378, 384 (1st Cir.1985)). "The quantum of evidence required to rebut the presumption is not high." United States v. Thompson, No. 16-CR-00019, 2018 WL 447331, at *2 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 17, 2018) (citation omitted). "Any evidence favorable to a defendant that comes within a cat

rd prong of the standing test, and the Petition and these proceedings must accordingly be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2 E.g., Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida court's jurisdiction, a "trial court is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the

an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

ubject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (1

an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

ubject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (1

an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

ubject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (1

an immunity agreement, we look to the terms of the agreement itself, determined by applying common law contractual principles."); United States v. Thompson, 25 F.3d 1558, 1562 (11th Cir. 1994) ("In determining the extent of immunity afforded a defendant under an immunity agreement, a court should apply

ubject matter jurisdiction.' See, e.g., Friends of the Earth, inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 185 (2000); Florida Wildlife Federation, Inc. v. South Florida Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald's Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (1