Epstein Secrets

(fence of the agent's intention to substitute or superadd his own personal liability for. or tg. that of his principal. Paribas Properties. tow.' Brown. 146 A.D.Til 522. 536 N/S.2d 1007. 1008 (1st Dept) igurnow Member F Weiss. 306 N.Y. 1, 4, 114 N.E.2d 177 1Ct.App.19531). As stated in Salzman Sign

ie showing that minimum contacts warranting personal jurisdiction exist.FN3 Mellon Bank (East) PSFS Nat. Ass'n I. Farina, 960 F.2d 1217, 1223 (3d Cir.1992). FN3. The Court notes that although a Plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdiction to defeat a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(bX

ult of disclosure. See id. at 681; see also Mayer Brown UP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2009)

ality can only be waived by the source. Adamowicz v. IRS, 402 Fed. App'x 648, 653 (2d Cir. 2010); see also Ferguson v. FBI, 957 F.2d 1059, 1068 (2d Cir.1992) ("[W]e reject the idea that subsequent disclosures of the identity of a confidential source ... requires full disclosure of information provided by

B. Zwany, Arthur P. Hui, Sarah J. Lum, Gary R. Brown, Assistant United States Atter- •7he Honorable Mi

d 20, the district court held a probable cause hear- ing pursuant to United States tz All Assets of Statewide Auto Pads, Inc. 971 F2d 896, 906 (2d Cir.1992) and United States v. Monsanto, 924 F2d 1186, 1203 (2d Cir.1991). On May 30, 1995, the district court vacated the seizure warrant, finding that th

t [ ] independent of the search." United States Brown, 328 F.3d 352, 357 (7th Page 8 Cir.2003) (inter

ase r remanded on other grounds. See United States Palmer, Palmer, F.3d 760, 767 (8th Cir.2002); sited States Montana, 979 F.2d 136, 138 (8th Cir.1992); United States I Fiallo-Jacome, 874 F.2d 1479, 1481-83 (11th Cir.1989). We conclude that Mr. Carter has forfeited his *646 current ex post facto

umption In favor of public access to the courts. Brown I. Advantage Engineer- The doctrine of ancillary

oduct even more scrupu- lously protected" than fact work' product); National Union Fire Ins. Co. R. Murray Sheet Metal Co., 967 F.2d 980, 984 (4th Cir.1992) (opinion work product "absolutely immune" from discovery); In re Martin Marietta Corp., 856 F.2d 619, 625 (4th Cir.1988); In re John Doe, 662

in Shafer. In addition, Defendant has not even alleged that he would be prejudiced by the equita- ble tolling. See Baldwin County Welcome Cir. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152, 104 S.Ct. 1723, 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) (discussing prejudice to the defendant as a factor the court must consider when determin

do not satisfy this [plm of criminal activity] requirement); Aldridge Lily-Tulip, Inc. Salary Ret. Plan Benefits Comm., 953 F.2d 587, 593 (I lth Cir.1992) (holding that criminal conduct lasting C 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works. EFTA00226223 Page 2 of 7 Not Reported in F.Supp