Epstein Secrets

legislative history at issue did not clearly evidence Congress' intent regarding retroactivity. Id. That is not the case here. As Judge Katzman of the Second Circuit has recognized, unambiguous legislative history should not be disregarded: When courts construe statutes in ways that respect what legislators cons

t natural reading" of the statute is "to construe `any offense involving' by reference to the elements of the offense at issue." 393 F.3d 192, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (emphasis in original). The court then gave an illustrative example of a case in which a defendant travels in interstate commerce, commits a

rotected by the Protective Order outweighs any public interest in their publication." (Id., at 9.) Messrs. Dershowitz and Cemovich both appealed to the Second Circuit. (ECF Nos. 500 and 915.) TheaAppeals are currently pending. On May 24, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a settlement agreement. Now, the

Fin. Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) 9 Equal Emp's Opponunity Comm'n v. Nat? Children's Ctr., Inc., 146 F.3d 1042 (D.C. Cir. 1998) 8 FDIC v. Ernst & Ernst, 677 F.2d 230 (2d Cir. 1982) 8 Gambale v. Deutsche Bank, 377 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2004) 15 Globe Newspapers, Co.

The district court approved the Settlement Agreement over the objection of the victims and the victims filed the petitions for mandamus. On appeal, the Second Circuit disagreed with the victims: To the extent that the Government recognizes that victims would have difficulty in effecting any recoveries from the Ri

of the final decision of the Attorney General" of any complaints of violations of the CVRA. Block v. Securities and Exchange Comm In, 50 F.3d I078 (D.C. Cir. 1995), is instructive. In Block, petitioners filed a petition asking the Court to find that the SEC had failed to fulfill its obligation to hold a

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

ry Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

would effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. United

ury Matter No. 91-01386 , 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States I Legal Servs. for New York City , 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privilege

es statement contained in the report) will never be admissible unless there is a separate and independent hearsay exemptions for such statement. As the Second Circuit has clearly held: "It is well established that entries in a police report which result from the officer's own observations and knowledge may be adm

e of the jury and thereby substitute his spoken word for the written document.") (italics in original). Gaines v. United States, 349 F.2d 190, 192 (D.C. Cir. I965)(error to allow prior written statement to be read to the witness in front of the jury for the purpose of refreshing recollection because "it

ould effectively insulate discoverable acts merely because they were enacted in the presence of an attorney.") (emphasis added). Just a month ago, the Second Circuit addressed this issue when a defendant tried to disqualify prosecutors who had seen four documents that the defense alleged were privileged. -19- EF

Jury Matter No. 91-01386, 969 F.2d 995, 997 (11th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). In United States v. Legal Servs. for New York City, 249 F.3d 1077 (D.C. Cir. 2001), the D.C. Circuit stated that "[c]ourts have consistently held that the general subject matters of clients' representations are not privileg