Epstein Secrets

e case law on point. The Second Circuit has not yet spoken definitively on this issue, [FN4] but recently noted the existence of a conflict between the Federal Circuit and the Seventh Circuit concerning "whether federal common law or state law applies to the interpretation of Postal Service Leases." Kerin v. United

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February 1, 1997 in the event that Epstein

e case law on point. The Second Circuit has not yet spoken definitively on this issue, [FN4] but recently noted the existence of a conflict between the Federal Circuit and the Seventh Circuit concerning "whether federal common law or state law applies to the interpretation of Postal Service Leases." Kerin I United

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February I, 1997 in the event that Epstein

e case law on point. The Second Circuit has not yet spoken definitively on this issue, [FN4] but recently noted the existence of a conflict between the Federal Circuit and the Seventh Circuit concerning "whether federal common law or state law applies to the interpretation of Postal Service Leases." Kerin v. Unite

ting "written confirmation" of OFM's alleged approval. By letter dated April 26, 1996, OFM formally responded to Epstein's request. In this letter, Thomas E. Burns, a representative of OFM, informed Epstein of OFM's intention to lease the Premises to Galinas beginning February 1, 1997 in the event that Epstein