Epstein Secrets

alm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515

time of the underlying conduct unless there is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the

alm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515

time of the underlying conduct unless there is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the

alm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515

time of the underlying conduct unless there is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the

alm Beach, FL 33401-5012 561-659-8300 Fax: 561-835-8691 [email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 [email protected] Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515

time of the underlying conduct unless there is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the