Epstein Secrets

afeguarding the privacy of thoughts and ideas —what we might call freedom of conscience—from invasion by the government." Seljan, 547 F.3d at 1014 (Kozinski, C.J., dissenting); see also New York v. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 873, 106 S.Ct. 1610, 89 L.Ed.2d 871 (1986). These records are expected to be

icion is not needed for customs officials to search a laptop or other personal electronic storage devices at the border," Arnold, 533 F.3d at 1008, the Ninth Circuit stands alone, as it so often does. The majority likens the search of Cotterman's laptop to a "computer strip search," Majority at 966, and proceed

every single personal email plaintiff has ever sent or ever received in the course of however many years these accounts were open. In fact, Judge Kozinski in the Ninth Circuit allowed a civil suit against those who propounded these improper subpoenas, and that was with regard to a professional email a

le personal email plaintiff has ever sent or ever received in the course of however many years these accounts were open. In fact, Judge Kozinski in the Ninth Circuit allowed a civil suit against those who propounded these improper subpoenas, and that was with regard to a professional email account, as opposed t

ght of the conference report on Rule 16, compelling disclosure of witness names before trial appears inconsistent with the federal rules. And even if the Ninth Circuit's approach was valid at the time Armstrong was decided, such an approach is no longer valid in light of the CVRA. Rule 57(b) only provides a basis for

Under the CVRA, courts may not limit victims to a written statement. See Kenna v. United States District Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1017 (9th Cir. 2006) (Kozinski, J.) ("Limiting victims to written impact statements, while allowing the prosecutor and the defendant the opportunity to address the court, would tre