Epstein Secrets

intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11 di Cir. 2004); United States Houston, 177 Fed. Aepx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); Chilled States' Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (11* Cir. 2005); United States' Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (11th Cir. 2005); an

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

nded objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005); United States it Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (le' Cir. 2005);

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

to out his intended to Murrell's exist in United States Hotnaday, 392 dive. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns simr I 6 (11" Cir. 2004); United States Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11th ir. 2006); Unite ales Seamy, 418 F.3d 1193 (II' Cir. 2005); United States Scott, 426 F. 3d 1324 (116 Cir. 2005 , and Uni

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These rums met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compro

assists the enterprise.”); Dep’t of Econ. Dev. v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 924 F.Supp. 449, 466-67 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (prov

utory foreign sovereign immunity and protecting a sovereign’s or sovereign’s agency’s legitimate claim to immunity from discovery.” First City, Texas—Houston, N.A. v. Rafidain Bank, 150 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir.1998) (ordering full discovery against defendant over whom court al- ready had subject matter juris