Epstein Secrets

the issue of its application on appeal." Sou v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1, 6 n.11 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal qu

arse comments are not enough for class treatment — illustrated in cases like King v. General Electric Company, 960 F.2d 617 (7th Cir. 1992). There, the Seventh Circuit found that the plaintiffs' anecdotal evidence in an age-discrimination case was not enough, even though the record contained testimony from a highe

is authorized engage under its com- merce power,"Gonzales Reich, 545U.S. I, ---, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2205, 16

d States Medearis. 451 F.3d 918. 920-21 (8th Cir.2006) (quotations omitted). This is particularly compelling in the child pornography context, as the Seventh Circuit has aptly said: Young children were raped in order to enable the production of the pornography that the defendant both downloaded and uploaded-bo

n. Feinstein). *2 Td. at $4263 (statement of Sen. Feinstein). 3 Td. at S4260 (statement of Sen. Kyl); see also Prepared Remarks of Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, Hoover Inst. Bd. of Overseers Conference (Feb. 28, 2005) (indicating a federal victims' rights amendment remains a priority for President Bush). 4

exists to justify nondisclosure of witnesses to opposing counsel and thus noncompliance with Rule 12.1." 198 Similarly, in United States v. Elizondo, the Seventh Circuit cited Causey for the proposition that the protection of potential witnesses could justify postponing disclosure. '°? Following the reasoning of the S