Epstein Secrets

2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00100013 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony wo

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00077678 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony wo

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00039493 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony wo

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

2005. (Def. Mot. 7, Ex. D at i). The defendant's claims relating to Michael Casey and Detective Recarey fare no better. She again speculates that Casey and Detective Recarey, who passed away in August 2017 and May 46 EFTA00103071 2018 respectively, would have testified, and that such testimony wo

sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th

lly and fairly implement this new Act. As Senator Leahy warned, "Passage of this bill will necessitate ca

n 22 Mich. J.L. & Reform 773 (1989). 50 See United States v. Sells Eng., Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 466 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). 5! See, e.g., State v. Casey, 44 P.3d 756 (Utah 2002), discussed infra notes 163-66 and accompanying text. 32 18 U.S.C.A. 3771(a)(4) (West 2004 & Supp. 2005); see In re Kari Ann