Epstein Secrets

3 05 2010 Page 29 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 29 meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: ... The rule of lenity requires ambiguous criminal laws to be interpreted in favor of the defendants subjected to them. See United

ent 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 03 05 2010 Page 7 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 7 Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, al (ED. Ca

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

eaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) t

meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9

also U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. I (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. Reim, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S.'. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WI, 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832,

of inertia upon the party that can best induce Congress to speak more clearly and keeps courts from making criminal law in Congress's stead. ... In Santos. the Court was faced with the interpretation of the term "proceeds" in the federal money laundering statute, 18 . §1956. "The federal money-launder

aning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in B. 9 EF

e U.S. I. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)• U.S. . Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) th

lso U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.CaI. Jan. II, 2010)- U.S.'. Rena, 2009 WI, 2579103, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). U.S.' Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l