Epstein Secrets

ON. M R AN & FOREMAN P.C. Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP Bobbi C. Sternheim Law Offices of

.3d 273, 303 (2d Cir. 2006). Of course, individuals cannot be allowed to lie their way onto a jury. Writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, Justice Cardozo concluded: "If the answers to the questions [during voir dire] are willfully evasive or knowingly untrue, the talesman, when accepted, is a juror i

ter Enters, Inc., 209 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2000) 17 Club Valencia Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Valencia Associates, 712 P.2d 1024 (Colo. App. 1985) 13 Cohen v. Stevanovich, 772 F.Supp.2d 416, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) 7 Collier v. Possum Cereal Co., Ltd., 134 N.Y.S. 847, 853 (1st Dep't 1912) 9 Couloute, Jr.

ngland, where all statements except the January 4 Statement one were made, the litigation privilege is broader than in the United States. As Justice Cardozo recognized, there the privilege exists whether the statements are relevant to the judicial proceedings or not. Andrews v. Gardiner, 224 N.Y. 440, 44

Justice Hugo Black, who purport to be absolutist for the protection of all speech, have figured out ways to finesse the problem. Consider the case of Cohen v. the United States in which an opponent of the Viet Nam War wore to court a jacket displaying the words “Fuck the draft.” Justice Black joined a di

e would say. “The court is a bully pulpit and we must make the most of it.” His favorite story was about the New York judge who complained, “Why does Cardozo always get the interesting cases,” referring to the great New York Court of Appeals Chief Judge (later Justice) who transformed tort law and other pa