ooks chuffed as she steps out with mystery man in New York City The 36-year-old has been playing the field » What a sweet couple! Pregnant Ginnifer Goodwin shares a kiss with husband Josh Dallas while eating ice cream at Disneyland Happiest place on earth > Kendall Jenner showcases her lithe legs in lea

laundering and, therefore, a com- mercial activity. See, eg., Federal Plain- tiffs’ Opp. to Motion to Dismiss of Prince Sultan at 18 (citing U.S. v. Goodwin, 141 F.3d 394, 399 (2d Cir.1997)). The Second Circuit noted in Goodwin that “[mloney laundering is a quintessential economic ac- tivity,’ 141 F.3d a

witness, (the trial court) can conclude that the witness could 'legitimately refuse to answer essentially all relevant questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. Fla. 1980)); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365, 367-68 (9th Cir. 1981). This exception is narrow and is applicable w

vilege where the trial court determines it to be legitimate based on the court’s knowledge of the case and the expected testimony. United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. Tsui, 646 F.2d 365 (9th Cir. 1981). This is not a case, however, where this narrow exception

enuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). The danger Ep

y threatening questions" which could furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to convict Epstein of a crime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). b. The District Court Judge Court Should Reverse or Modify The Magistrate Judge's Order (DE 242) Relative to I

tein of a crime. (DE 242, p.18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 5. As detai

nected to a crime. A Fifth Amendment privilege can only be properly asserted with respect to “genuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). Epstein’s concern appears to be not that he will be prosecuted for having money in a bank, but rather that thi

in of a crime. (DE 242, p. 18) United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). 2 Case 9:

enuinely threatening questions.” United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5th Cir. 1980). In ruling as

he privilege raised as to these requests valid, and asserted by Epstein only with reference to 'genuinely threatening questions." United States v. Goodwin, 625 F.2d 693, 701 (5 th Cir. 1980). (DE 462 at p. 10-11) Based upon the foregoing, it is clear that this court made the correct ruling relative to

nt to hi[m]/her in a particular case.” 203 See, e.g., Wayte, 470 U.S. at 607; United States v. Goodwin, 457 U.S. 368, 380 n.11 (1982); Bordenkircher, 434 U.S. at 364; Imbler, 424 U.S. 409. 204 The discretionary authority under USAM § 9-27.240 to de

full article » Calif. Court Affirms $2.7M Auto Collision Verdict Freshfields Gass Weber Gibson Dunn Goldstein & Russell Gomez Trial Attorneys Goodwin Greenberg Traurig Grubman Shire Hogan Lovells Hueston Hennigan Irell & Manella Jenner & Block Kaufman Dolowich Kirkland & Ellis Latham & Watki

hey allege violate the Investment Company Act creates an unconventional circuit split, and poses litigation risk for mutual funds, say attorneys at Goodwin. Opinion attached I Read full article The Growing Trend Of State Transfer Pricing Scrutiny Taxpayers that are prepared with contemporaneous, Inter

Polk Davis Wright Tremaine Debevoise & Plimpton Dechert Edelson PC Foley & Lardner Fox Rothschild Fuerst Ittleman Gibson Dunn Girard Sharp Goodwin Haddon Morgan Hausfeld LLP Hawkins Parnell Hogan Lovells Holland & Knight Hughes Hubbard Hunton Andrews Kurth Jones Day K&L Gates Kasowitz

Williamson Schwegman Lundberg Segal McCambridge Seward & Kissel Seyfarth Shaw Shearman & Sterling Sheppard Mullin Sherman & Howard Shipman & Goodwin Shook Hardy Shumaker Loop Shuns & Bowen Sidley Austin Sills Cummis Simmons Hanly Simpson Thacher Sirote & Permutt Skadden Smith Anderson S

tates v. Kelly, 790 F.2d 130, 137 (D.C.Cir.1986). While there is a presumption that the information is conveyed to the prosecution team, Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486, 495 (D.C.Cir.1983), vacated on other grounds, 712 F.2d 1444, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040, 104 S.Ct. 704, 79 L.Ed.2d 169 (1984), the

rland Faegre Drinker Fisher Phillips Foley & Lardner Fox Rothschild Fragomen Del Rey Fried Frank Fross Zelnick Gibson Dunn Goldberg Segalla Goodwin Greenberg Traurig Greenspoon Marder Hinshaw & Culbertson Hodgson Russ Hogan Lovells Hueston Hennigan Husch Blackwell Irell & Manella Jackson

a release. 2 documents attached I Read full article » Friedman Oster Gallagher & Associates Law Firm Gallo Vitucci Gibson Dunn Glancy Prongay Goodwin Grabar Law Harrity & Harrity Hill Ward Henderson Hogan Lovells Husch Blackwell Jenner & Block Jones Day K&L Gates Kaplan Fox Kaufman Borgeest

e Drinker Fenwick & West Fisher Phillips Foley & Lardner Foley Hoag Fragomen Del Rey Fried Frank Fross Zelnick Gibson Dunn Goldberg Segalla Goodwin Greenberg Traurig Greenspoon Marder Hinshaw & Culbertson Hodgson Russ Hogan Lovells Hogan Thompson LLP Holland & Knight Hueston Hennigan Hus