Epstein Secrets

mate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing 27 EFTA00078861 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2nd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON EFTA00208063 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 57-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2n° Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

ment that a victim be "directly and proximately harmed" encompassed the traditional "but for" and proximate cause analyses. Id. at 350, citing In Re Rendon Galvis , 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2 ' Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the

to its public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison , 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal

, citing 27 EFTA00230092 ff ell.;;;;;:t; --- ------- 1 Case 9:O8-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2011 Page 28 of 54 In Re Rendon Galvis, 564 F.3d 170, 175 (2gd Cir. 2009). As applied to McNulty, the issue was whether he was directly and proximately harmed by criminal conduct in the c

s public or sovereign capacity; and (3) the Government's agent must have been acting within the scope of his or her authority. Id. at 1541, citing FDIC v Harrison, 735 F.2d at 410. In this case, the Government was acting in its sovereign capacity when it investigated whether Epstein had committed any federal