<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Case of the Day: In re Search of Premises	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 13 Dec 2024 21:44:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Belfast Project: The New First Circuit Decision &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/#comment-22945</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Belfast Project: The New First Circuit Decision &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2024 22:09:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=250#comment-22945</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] was issued pursuant to a request under an MLAT. The Ninth Circuit had reached this result in In re 840 140th Ave. NE, 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011), the case of the day from February 2, 2011. But the Ninth Circuit case stands for the proposition [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] was issued pursuant to a request under an MLAT. The Ninth Circuit had reached this result in In re 840 140th Ave. NE, 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011), the case of the day from February 2, 2011. But the Ninth Circuit case stands for the proposition [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Case of the Day: Furstenberg Finance v. Litai Assets &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/#comment-22449</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Case of the Day: Furstenberg Finance v. Litai Assets &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Nov 2024 23:48:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=250#comment-22449</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] is over, not whether the overall dispute is over. The court cited a Ninth Circuit decision I covered in 2011, In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011) [&#8230;]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] is over, not whether the overall dispute is over. The court cited a Ninth Circuit decision I covered in 2011, In re Premises Located at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash., 634 F.3d 557 (9th Cir. 2011) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: The First Circuit&#8217;s Belfast Project Decision: Analysis &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/#comment-65</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[The First Circuit&#8217;s Belfast Project Decision: Analysis &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 08 Jul 2012 20:17:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=250#comment-65</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] under the MLAT. I don&#8217;t believe this is correct. It seems to me, based on the reasoning in In re Search of Premises Located at at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash. (9th Cir. 2011), that the court must issue and enforce the subpoena as long as it is constitutional to do so. Once [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] under the MLAT. I don&#8217;t believe this is correct. It seems to me, based on the reasoning in In re Search of Premises Located at at 840 140th Ave. NE, Bellevue, Wash. (9th Cir. 2011), that the court must issue and enforce the subpoena as long as it is constitutional to do so. Once [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Update on the Boston College / IRA Case &#171; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2011/02/02/case-of-the-day-in-re-search-of-premises/#comment-64</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Update on the Boston College / IRA Case &#171; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jul 2011 11:10:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=250#comment-64</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] of the subpoena would be unconstitutional. The government cited in support of its position In re Search of Premises, the Letters Blogatory Case of the Day from February 2, which arose under the US/Russia MLAT and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] of the subpoena would be unconstitutional. The government cited in support of its position In re Search of Premises, the Letters Blogatory Case of the Day from February 2, which arose under the US/Russia MLAT and [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
