Epstein Secrets

gallon regular milk 1 quart skim milk • I quart half and half 17 4 Lurpak European butter J I large container Dannon regular plain yogurt D 1 Philadelphia cream cheese • I tub plain cottage cheese D V2 pint heavy cream • I dozen eggs • % pound Boar's Head Swiss cheese :I Haagen Dazs ice cream -

$6.82 Coffee $930.69 10 2/20/2005 Office Depot $39.40 Office supplies $891.29 11 2/21/2005 Ft,Laud Airport $1.00 Parking $890.29 12 2/21/2005 Burger King $3.93 Lunch $886.36 13 2/21/2005 Office Depot $9.56 Office supplies $876.8O 14 2/21/2005 Carmine's $230.84 Groceries $645.96 15 2/22/2005 Ma

wledge known only to you involves relying on com- monly known rules about causation. What about prediction? You can believe that New York will beat Philadelphia in football. You can predict it based on evidence. You can explain the cause and effect that have made you come to this point of view. But, after New

ript, however. It doesn’t work quite like that at Burger King. The script is different but there is a script there too and we learn it if we frequent Burger King. The restaurant script has many varia- tions and we are initially confused when we encounter a new one, but we learn through repeated practice. And,

n, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, Elliot R. Feldman, J. Scott Tarbutton, John M. Popilock, Sean P. Car- ter, Stephen A. Cozen, Cozen O’Connor (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, for Plain- tiffs. David P. Gersch, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P., Donna M. Sheinbach, Michael D. McNeely, Nancy Luque, Steven A. Mad-

rocess requirements. Plaintiffs claim these requirements are met because De- fendants purposefully directed their activi- ties at the United States. Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472, 479, 105 8.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985) (explain- ing jurisdiction is appropriate if defendant “purposefully dire

R. Pounian, Kreindler & Kreindler, New York City, Elliot R. Feldman, J. Scott Tarbutton, John M. Popilock, Sean P. Carter, Stephen A. Cozen O’Connor (Philadelphia), Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiffs. David P. Gersch, Arnold & Porter, L.L.P.. Donna M. Sheinbach, Michael D. McNeely, Nancy Luque, Steven A. Maddox,

ed States. The minimum contacts requirement is satisfied “if the defendant has ‘purposefully directed’ his activities at the residents of the forum.” Burger King v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Foreseeability is not enough, there must be “some act by which the defendant