Epstein Secrets

enuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). In ruling as

ndment. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1 F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S.

he privilege raised as to these requests valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to 'genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5 th Cir. 1980). (DE 462 at p. 10-11) Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that this court made the correct ruling relative to

timonial admissions and to be a witness against himself and to authenticate the existence of certain items. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, 1F.3d 87, 93 (2d Cir. 1993). For the same reasons set out above, the interrogatories seek compelled statements and further ask that Epstein authenticate and testify to t

aundering and, therefore, a com- mercial activity. See, e.g., Federal Plain- tiffs' Opp. to Motion to Dismiss of Prince Sultan at 18 (citing U.S. v. Goodwin, 141 793 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir.1997)). The Second Circuit noted in Goodwin that "[mJoney laundering is a quintessential economic ac- tivity," 141

0 (hereinafter "Supp. Al-Wohai- bi Aff."). a. Status of the PIF In Filler v. Hanvit Bank, a case with facts very similar to those presented here, the Second Circuit reiterated Dole Food's requirement of direct ownership for instru- mentality status. Two defendants were commercial banks majority-owned by the Ko

t of the Princes’ ac- tions. [22-24] Pursuant to the Second Cir- cuit’s instruction, the Court must first de- termine whe

very least, discovery should be ordered circumspectly and only to verify allega- tions of specific facts crucial to an immuni- ty determination.”)). The Second Circuit has instructed “that generally a plaintiff may be allowed limited discovery with re- spect to the jurisdictional issue; but until [plaintiff] has sho

laundering and, therefore, a com- mercial activity. See, eg., Federal Plain- tiffs’ Opp. to Motion to Dismiss of Prince Sultan at 18 (citing U.S. v. Goodwin, 141 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir.1997)). The Second Circuit noted in Goodwin that “[mloney laundering is a quintessential economic ac- tivity,’ 141 F.3d a

e Drinker Fenwick & West Fisher Phillips Foley & Lardner Foley Hoag Fragomen Del Rey Fried Frank Fross Zelnick Gibson Dunn Goldberg Segalla Goodwin Greenberg Traurig Greenspoon Marder Hinshaw & Culbertson Hodgson Russ Hogan Lovells Hogan Thompson LLP Holland & Knight Hueston Hennigan Hus

Pennsylvania Supreme Court Securities and Exchange Commission Small Business Administration U.S. Attorney's Office U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit EFTA00032909 --- PAGE BREAK --- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services U.S. Department of