Epstein Secrets

pick up at a Pennsylvania business, and then return to Ohio, the Defendants purposely availed themselves to the benefits of doing business in the Commonwealth. While merely passing through a state is not a sufficient contact to warrant jurisdiction, when a party makes a business delivery in the state Pa

e 1895 predecessor to the current Garb Statute was upheld against a similar state constitutional challenge by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania in Commonwealth I. Herr, 229 Pa. 132. 78 A. 68 (1910). and this Court is not at liberty to reconsider that vin- tage ruling. 561 ing enforcement of ARIN's Religi

her II. Martin, Jesse Sie- gel a/k/a Jessie Siegel, Siegel, Martin & Ileilbrun, Ron Softer, and Carmen Tau- sik, Defendants. No. 96 CIV. 8307(DC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 31, 1998. Federal government, as landlord, brought proceeding to evict tenants from building. Government moved for part

n of all the circumstances in the case, ... that the answer( s) cannot possibly have such tendency' to incriminate." Id. at 488. (quoting Temple v. Commonwealth, 75 Va. 892, 898 (188l)(emphasis in original).)) Here, the Court cannot conclude that answers and responses cannot possibly have a tendency to incri

e 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 391 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/03/2009 Page 1 of 15 JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CIV-80119-MARRA/JOHNSON --------------~/ Related cases: 08-80232, 08-08380, 08-80381, 08-80994, 08-8099

. United States, 1951, 340 U.S. 367, 71 S.Ct. 438, and to require him to answer if 'it clearly appears to the court that he is mistaken.' Temple v. Commonwealth, 1880, 75 Va. 892, 899. However, if the witness, upon interposing his claim, were required to prove the hazard in the sense in which a claim is usu

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 63 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/25/2009 Page 1 of 37 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80119-MARRA-JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, V. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. I --------------