Epstein Secrets

d actual 2 prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that 3 were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were made 4 to Crescenz. 5 And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. 6 Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective 7 reasonableness by the of

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

d actual 2 prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that 3 were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were made 4 to Crescenz. 5 And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. 6 Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective 7 reasonableness by the of

stions that were posed to 15 these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have 16 been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's 17 Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom 18 Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. 19 These are no

efendant had actual prior knowledge of the issues, of the at-issue statements that were offered by the defendant. Again, the statements were mad to Crescenz. And then the last case is a 1983 case, Tierney v. Davidson. That involved civil rights violations and objective reasonableness by the officers who

d of questions that were posed to these witnesses were precisely the kind of questions that have been disapproved in the Second Circuit. And that's Brink's Inc. v. City of New York, which is in the papers; WorldCom Security Litigation, also in the papers; and LiButti itself. These are not technical