Epstein Secrets

Dep’t of State, 373 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir, 2004) occceeesescsnsesssesnseeesesnseeecesnseeenesnseeeeesnseenesnseees Neumeier v. Kuehner, 286 N.E.2d 454 (N.Y. 1972) ccs Redding v. Edwards, 569 F. Supp. 2d 129 (D.D.C. 2008) ........ Rivera v. Heyman, 157 F.3d 101 (2d Cir, 1998) eee Salahi v. Obama, 625 F.3d

8 (2010) eee *vili Schneberger v. Wheeler, 859 F.2d 1477 (11th Cir. L988), sarcasm cena enemies Sickles v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 167 N.Y.S.2d 977 (N.Y. SUP CH 1987) ccnscencnmmennencnmennencmmennennmmaennencmen Sinaltrainal v. Coca-Cola Co., 578 F.3d 1252 (11th Cir. DOO) sesceveescecswrencernccccreee

695, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135216, at *19-20 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 23, 2011) (same); U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass’n v. Verizon Commce’ns, Inc., No. 10-CV-1842, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 106657, at *12-16 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2011) (same); Redding v. Edwards, 569 F. Supp. 2d 129, 132 (D.D.C. 2008) (same); Almog v. Arab Bank, PLC

06), but in practice the reported cases under the CVRA thus far show few examples where the government has been willing to do so. See, e.g., Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Cent. Dist. of Cal., 435 F.3d 1011, 1018 (9th Cir. 2006) (victims' assertion of right affirmed; government does not take a position on t

4) "["Forthwith'] connotes action which is immediate, without delay, prompt, and with reasonable dispatch."); Ayers v. Coughlin, 530 N.E.2d 373, 375 (N.Y. 1988) (“We reiterate that the statutory mandate to commit individuals to the officials responsible for their custody "forthwith' means that it is don

ir feelings at the voting polls."); cf. Chenev v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004) ("The decision to

arijuana dealers who comply with state law). For local examples, see Joseph Goldstein, Spare a Swipe? New York City Eases Rules for a Subway Request, N.Y. Times (Apr. 17, 2016), Atips://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/18/nyregion/spare-a-swipe-new-yvork-city-eases-rules-for-a- subway-request.himl (describing a