Epstein Secrets

atement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court's very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court's interpretive methodology when it comes to federal

erson ..."). § 2423(b) is not such a statute. Federal court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak l

have "traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of federal criminal statutes, both out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress, Dowling'. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), and out of concern that 'a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will u

s that, "while not the equivalent of criminal a post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thorn v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]se

122 Doe I v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. I. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (RJS), 2007 WL 2

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

122 Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 29

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

122 Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 29

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 795 (1977). The Supreme Court has "defined the category of infractions that violate `fundamental fairness' very narrowly," Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 352 (1990), and the Supreme Court has "stressed the importance for constitutional purposes of good or bad faith on t

that, "while not the equivalent of criminal ex post facto, nevertheless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]sel

122 Doe 1 v. United States, 359 F. Supp. 3d 1201 (S.D. Fla. 2019) 14 Doe No. 1. v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014) 173, 174, 176 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) 76 Duren v. Missouri, 439 U.S. 357 (1979) 289, 296 Edwards v. Mazzuca, No. 00 Civ. 2290 (US), 2007 WL 29

tatement reveals how inapposite a federal prosecution is to the facts in this case. Importantly, we note that the CEOS review was conducted prior to the Supreme Court’s very recent decisions in Santos and Cuellar, which we believe—illuminating as they do the Court’s interpretive methodology when it comes to federal c

y have “traditionally exercised restraint in assessing the reach of federal criminal statutes, both out of deference to the prerogatives of Congress, Dowling v. United States, 473 U.S. 207 (1985), and out of concern that ‘a fair warning should be given to the world in language that the common world will un