Epstein Secrets

ihu Root and William D. Guthrie, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Jacob Hoffman Brewing Co. Guggenheimer, Untermyer & Marshall, of New York City (Elihu Root and William D. Guthrie, both of New York City, of counsel), for appellee Clausen-Flanagan Brewery. •526 Fitch & Grant, of New York Cit

7 accordingly been issued restraining the United States attorney and the acting and deputy collector of internal revenue of the Third district of New York from enforcing, pending final hearing, certain acts of Congress. It seems to me that the rulings made are contrary to the powers of a court of equ

mindful of the fact that a district court 'retains great latitude in deciding wl illy • should be asked on voir dire.' Mu'Min 500 U.S. 415, 424, Ill S.Ct. 1899, 114 . . 493 (1991). We ascertain only whether the district court ensured that Middleton had 'a fair r trial by a el of impartial, "indiff

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.O. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States V. R. Enters., Inc., 498 U.S. 292, 297-98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); Milted States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). "A grand jury investigation 'is

ctn. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292. 297-98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). "A grand jury investigation 'is

int in August 2004, is this mat- ter within the statute of limitations. At the hearing, Plaintiff suggested that be- cause the videotape was made in New York, Defendant's interstate transporta- tion of the item to =, and continuing EFTA00226278 SMITH I HUSBAND Chen376 F.Supp2d 603 (E-D.Va. 2005) C.1.

ctly points out that Congress is ofi presumed to be aware existing law when it enacts legislation. See Miles Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32, Ill S.Ct. 7, 112 L.Ed.2d 275 (1990) . She argues that, because Congress intended to provide sex crime victims, such as her son, with a civil remedy, and b

cert. denied, 386 U.S. 1031, 87 S.Ct. 1479, 18 L.Ed.2d 592 (1967). In this case, compliance with the federal grand jury subpoena will not subvert New York's interest in maintaining the secrecy of grand jury proceedings because federal grand jury proceedings are also conducted secretly. The secrecy req

federal grand jury is to be afforded wide latitude in conducting its investigation. See United States v. R. Enters., Inc.. 498 U.S. 292, 297.98, Ill S.Ct. 722, 726, 112 L.Ed.2d 795 (1991); United States v. Calandra. 414 U.S. 338, 94 S.Ct. 613. 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974). 'A grand jury investigation 'is