6
Shared Docs
6
Same-Page
6 / 6
Mentions
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
.. effect upon ... current lav/' so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomasioc.govibss/abt dgsthtrril (last visited May 10, 2009). EFTA00207696 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 128 Entered on FL
uct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Did Not Intend To Apply Masha's Law Retroactively. It is axiomatic that "retroactivity is not favored," Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), and the "traditional presumption teaches that [an amended statute] does not govern absent clea
.. effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/bsdabt dgetlitnil (last visited May 10, 2009). -6- EFTA00212898 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered o
uct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Did Not Intend To Apply Masha's Law Retroactively. It is axiomatic that "retroactivity is not favored," Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), and the "traditional presumption teaches that [an amended statute] does not govern absent clea
.. effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/bsdabt dgetlitnil (last visited May 10, 2009). -6- EFTA00212965 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered o
uct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Did Not Intend To Apply Masha's Law Retroactively. It is axiomatic that "retroactivity is not favored," Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), and the "traditional presumption teaches that [an amended statute] does not govern absent clea
.. effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/bsdabt dgetlitnil (last visited May 10, 2009). -6- EFTA00221368 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered o
uct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Did Not Intend To Apply Masha's Law Retroactively. It is axiomatic that "retroactivity is not favored," Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), and the "traditional presumption teaches that [an amended statute] does not govern absent clea
.. effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/bsdabt dgetlitnil (last visited May 10, 2009). -6- EFTA00221465 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered o
uct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Did Not Intend To Apply Masha's Law Retroactively. It is axiomatic that "retroactivity is not favored," Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 488 U.S. 204, 208 (1988), and the "traditional presumption teaches that [an amended statute] does not govern absent clea
.. effect upon ... current law" so that Congress can make informed judgments about the impact of proposed bills. See The Library of Congress, About CRS Summary, available at http://thomas.loc.gov/bsdabt dgetlitnil (last visited May 10, 2009). -6- EFTA00189754 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered o
Entities connected to both Bowen and CRS Summary

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
George W. Bush
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Alan Dershowitz
PERSONJack Goldberger
PERSON
John Kerry
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSONLeon Black
PERSONAtterbury Goldberger & Weiss
ORGANIZATION
Scarlett Johansson
PERSONCalder
ORGANIZATION
Merritt
PERSONMichael J. Pike
PERSON
United States District Court
ORGANIZATIONKatherine W. Ezell
PERSONRobert C. Josefsberg
PERSONCalder v. Bull
PERSONRobert D. Critton
PERSONWalker
PERSON