ature of such conduct that the law expressly permits the jury to make adverse inferences from a party's efforts to intimidate witnesses... .” Jost v. Ahmad, 730 So.2d 708, 711 (Fla. 2" Dist. Ct. App. 1998) Gnternal quotation omitted). To be clear, Epstein’s attempt to tamper with witnesses is “not simply

revolution, debated U.S. subsidies to Egypt. “We don’t want money,” says one blogger, Safa. “We want to make sure we go the right way.” No, counters Ahmad, “we need the money, but it must be with no strings attached.” Eventually, the talk turns to nuts-and-bolts democracy, the real Jefferson-Hamilton st

ly that she would be able to establish that any personal or family hardship that might be caused by the extradition65 should outweigh the public 59 Ahmad v United Kingdom (2010) 51 EHRR SE6, para. 105. 60 R (Bermingham) v Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2007] QB 727, para. 100. 61 Extradition A

are the subject of three separate sets of criminal proceedings in the United States federal courts. The first set concerns the first applicant, Mr Ahmad, and the third applicant, Mr Ahsan. The second set of proceedings concerns the second applicant, Mr Aswat, and the fourth applicant, Abu Hamza. The