Epstein Secrets

it as a pattern of racketeering activity"); see also Cofacredit, S.A. v. Windsor Plumbing Supply Co.. 187 F.3d 229, 242 (2d Cir.1999) (noting that the Second Circuit "has never held a period of less than two years to constitute a substantial period of time"). Second, the criminal activities allegedly committed

offenders accountable and deterring similar conduct by others. ill The court first considers whether Thailand is an available and adequate forum. Bredimus contends the forum is available because he has stipulated to the jurisdiction of Thailand courts and Boonma resides there. The case and all partie

British nor American forum where there was no indication in record that British courts are more or less congested than American courts). Because Bredimus has the burden of showing that this factor favors dismissal, the court holds that it supports litigating the case in Texas. B *6 The court next e

at 1551 (holding that district court may determine the conditions of dismissal). Booluna may move this court to reinstate this action in the event Bredimus seeks to evade the jurisdiction of the Thailand courts or to interpose a limitations defense. • • • •11 Defendant's May 9, 2005 motion to dismiss

ates and could not be held liable for misdelivery of goods. BROOKS v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. PO. 199, Docket 21917. United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. Argued March 13, 1951. Decided March 28,1951. John R. Brooks brought an action against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company for We- delivery of goo

defendant: (1) traveled in interstate commerce and (2) acted with the intent to enga pi in illicit sexual conduct. c," See, e.g., United States Bredimus, 52 F.3d 200, 208 (5th Cir.2003); United States Hersh, zy F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th Cir.2002); nited States Gama he, 156 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.1998); U

, 259 F. 35, 38, and De- moth United States, 144 F. 363, 366, 6 I.R.A., .S., 424, 7 Ann.Cas. 121; by the decision of the Circuit Court of ala of the Second Circuit in Reed ■ United States, 2 Cir., 96 F2d 785, 787, rtlorarl denied 305 U.S. 612, 59 S.Ct. 71, 83 LEd. 399; and by the rulin of the Supreme Court

gn Commerce Clause vis-a-vis congressional authority to regulate our cit- izens' ire conduct abroad few and far between. See. e.g., United States Bredimus, 352 F.3d 200, 207-08 (5th Cir.2003 (affirming conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(b), which reaches any person who travels in foreign commerce "for