Epstein Secrets

er proper person attesting to their authenticity or correctness. . . . They were received without any foundation other than the representations of Appellees counsel. In short, rule 1.510(e), by its very language, excludes any document from the record on a motion for summary judgment that is not one of t

ce and documents between Epstein's counsel and Federal prosecutors violates an Order entered in Jane Doe No. 2. v. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-Marra/Johnson on January 5, 2011. (See D.E. 226) (Ex. A attached hereto). Pursuant to that Order, Edwards is required to seek leave of court before filing or mak

ION OR WITHDRAWAL. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Harold E. WOLFE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Jeffrey T. FOREMAN, et al., Appellees. No. 3D10-3055. I July 17, 2013. Synopsis Background: Partner in a limited liability company (LLC) brought abuse of process and malicious pros

Acts committed prior to the filing of the complaint may not, in some cases, enjoy the broad protection of the privilege. For example, in Olson v. Johnson, 961 So.2d 356, 360 (Fla. 2d DCA 2007), the court found that the litigation privilege did not protect the three women who allegedly filed a police

ns, Jr., WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC, Birmingham, Alabama, for Appellants. Lisa Schiavo Blatt, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: Armand Derfner, D. Peters Wilborn, Jr., DERFNER, ALTMAN & WILBORN. Charleston, South Carolina; Ann K. Wiggins, WIGGINS, CHILDS, QUINN &

ication on appeal." Sou v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1, 6 n.11 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted here and throughout); accord Johnson v. United States, 734 F.3d 352, 360 (4th Cir. 2013). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00056843 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL DB

Adam Augustine Caner, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thom

Goldberg, Kohn, Bell, Black, Rosenbloom & Moritz, Ltd, Chicago, Illi- nois, for Appellant. Chad McGowan, S. Randall Hood, McGowan, Hood, Felder & Johnson, Rock Hill, South Carolina; Randall M. Eason, Bagnell & Eason, L.L.C., Lancaster, South Carolina, for Ap- pellees. Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and

taken and now appellants move us to order a stay of the removal pending disposition of the appeals from the orders dismissing the equity suits. Appellees, in response, show that ap- pellants have given bail bonds on remov- al calling for their appearance in the Michigan District to answer the indict-

[3][4] We generally defer to the district court in imposing supervised release conditions and revie them for an abuse of discretion. United States Johnson, 998 F.2d 696, 697(9th Cir.I993). Because Torres did not object to the conditions of his supervised release before the sentencing court, however,

porated, Arthur Young & Company, Northwestern National Bank, Hospital Authority No. 1 of Sarpy County, Nebraska and Midlands Com- munity Hospital, Appellees. No. 77-1923. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted April 14, 1978. Decided June 9, 1978. Purchaser of corporate bonds brou

hort period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and trainin programs after release.")); see also United States Johnson. 529 U.S. 53. 59 (2000) ("The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of super