Epstein Secrets

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

of the plaintiff's allegations. Makro Capital of America, Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[W]e determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matt

inforcing the presumption of innocence, our justice system's bedrock, there is a "strong presumption against [pretrial] detention." United States v. Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d 85, 87 (D.D.C. 2009). A person facing trial generally must be released so long as some "condition, or combination of conditions ..

on or any other criminal matter, which several courts have observed is a critical factor in evaluating whether pretrial release is appropriate. See Hanson, 613 F. Supp. 2d at 90 ("In this case, ... there is no strong circumstantial evidence indicating that Mrs. Hanson intends to flee the United States"

of the plaintiff's allegations. Makro Capital of America, Inc. v. UBS AG, 543 F.3d 1254, 1258 (11th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted); see also, e.g., McMaster v. United States, 177 F.3d 936, 940 (11th Cir. 1999) ("[W]e determine whether this lawsuit survives the government's factual attack [on subject matt

nducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Dan- ville Plywood 238 S.E.2d at 802 (quoting Hanson v. Denekla, 357 U.S. 235, 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228,2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958)). 113-15] The United States Supreme Court ("Supreme Court••") has developed a

sconduct of his servant, and that such willful misconduct, while it may be within the course of the employment, is not with- in the scope thereof." McMaster v. Reale, 177 Pa.Super. 429, 110 Aid 831, 832 (1955). (91 In addition, Pennsylvania courts have held that "an assault committed by an employee u