Epstein Secrets

ions.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—p

n Victims of Crime, 25 NEw ENG. J. oN CRIM. & CIV. CONFINEMENT 21, 64 & n.168 (1999) (citing to victims’ rights statutes in Connecticut, Hlinois, and Michigan, among others). Unfortunately, as some commentators have noted, the notice and conferral provisions in some states are ambiguous, and the absence of

t none of these cases - United States v. 10 104 Turner, !9? Searcy v. Paletz, !°3 or Searcy v. Skinner -

Victims of Crime, 25 New Eng. J. on Crim. & Civ. Confinement 21, 64 & n.168 (1999) (citing to victims' rights statutes in Connecticut, Illinois, and Michigan, among others). Unfortunately, as some commentators have noted, the notice and conferral provisions in some states are ambiguous, and the absence of

d on PORC; reminder about low 7520 rates 09/10/04 Turner v. Commissioner (formerly Thompson): 3d Circuit a

T exemption amounts 05/16/03 Jobs and growth bill; trust’s investment fees subject to 2% floor (Scott); tax 2003-09 apportionment (PNC Bank v. Roy); Michigan and the TPT credit (Lacks v. Michigan Department of Treasury) 05/02/03 Jobs and growth bill; flat tax proposals; tax apportionment (Kurait) 2003-08