Epstein Secrets

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

mployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities li

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

mployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities li

he most recent court decision to carefully review the Justice Department's position is Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2011). In that case, the court flatly rejected the Department's claim that rights attach only after charges are formally filed

aim of estoppel is the doctrine of 'unclean hands."' Bird v. Centennial Ins. Co‘, 11 F.3d 228, 234 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing Peabody Gas & Oil Co. v. Standard Oil Co., 284 Mass. 87, 187 N.E. 112, 113 (1933) ("[O]ne must come into a court of equity with clean hands in order to secure relief....")). Thus, "equity r

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

mployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities li

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

mployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities li

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

mployed in a statute which had at the time a well-known meaning ... in the law of this country, they are presumed to have been used in that sense," Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U.S. 1, 59 (1911), § 2255's reference to "legal disability" can only be interpreted as a reference to classic disabilities li

3); 15 US.C. §§ 78dd-2(a) (3), 78dd-3(a)(3). BI See, CL5 Complaint, SEC v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 11-cv-686 (D.D.C. Apr. 8, 2011) [hereinafter SEC v. Johnson & Johnson| (bribes paid through Greek and Romanian agents)), available at http: //wwwssec. gov/ litigation/ complaints/ 2011/comp21922. pdf; ; Criminal

of its agents,” including “the conduct of its subsidiaries.”). '? Pacific Can Co. 95 F.2d at 46; NYNEX Corp., 788 F. Supp. at 18 n.3. 1 See, 6.8.5 Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 307 F.2d 120, 127 (Sth Cir. 1962). 181 Admin. Proceeding Order, In the Matter of United Industrial Corp., Exchange Act Release No.