Epstein Secrets

v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 356, 371 (1995)(Stevens, J., dissenting). Just as a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Mickler v. Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (611' Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Travel 44 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-8

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

United States , 116 S.Ct. 356, 371 (1995) (Stevens, J., dissenting). Just as a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Mickler v. Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co. , 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6 III Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Travel Marketing, Inc. v. FDIC , 45 F.3d 1278

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

v. United States, 116 S.Ct. 356, 371 (1995)(Stevens, J., dissenting). Just as a court's subject matter jurisdiction cannot be conferred by estoppel, Mickler v. Nimishillen and Tuscarawas Railway Co., 13 F.3d 184, 189 (6* Cir. 1993), and Intercontinental Thavel 44 EFTA00230109 ovenfiedry#, Case 9:08-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