Epstein Secrets

08/2009 Page 2 of 25 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 2 Defendant's motion). It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994

Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause. In Siegel, the Eleventh Circuit found that the Ex Post Facto Clause barred application of the EFTA00201264 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009

s, which is consistent with applicable law discussed more fully below herein. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (199

so would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution. See U.S. Const. art I, §9, el. 3." The Ex Post Facto analysis made by the Eleventh Circuit in Siegel is applicable to this action. In resolving the issue in favor of the defendant, the Court first considered whether a restitution order is

ein, et al. Page 7 (quoted above). See endnote 1 hereto, Complaint ¶11, 13.1 It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994

mining whether the exceptional circumstances exist requiring dismissal of the federal action in favor of the first filed action. As explained in by the Eleventh Circuit in American Bankers Ins. Co., because EPSTEIN is seeking dismissal of this action in deference to a pending state court action, "it is governed by

s, which is consistent with applicable law discussed more fully below herein. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf I. USI Film Products 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994

009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). U.S.' Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual damages," the Eleventh Circuit in McMillian i t F.D.I.C., 81 F.3d 1041, 1055 (I I th Cir.1996)3, succinctly explained: 3 In McMillian the I 1th Circuit was faced with the task of