Epstein Secrets

S. 151, 108th Cong. (as engrossed in the Senate, Feb. 24. 2003) 7 Robert A. Katzmann, Judging Statutes (2014), at 3 7 iv EFTA00103713 Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, 55147 (2003) 7 v EFTA00103714 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorand

onjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 6 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) 13 Landgraf v. USI Film Prod., 511 U.S. 244 (1994) passim Lattab v. Ashcroft, 384 F.3d 8 (1st Cir. 2004) 7 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 13 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 7 Shular v. United States, 140

visions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. S5137, 55147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 32

U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungvs v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgralv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel Coup., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

visions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. 55137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 32

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

visions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. 55137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 32

S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir.

visions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. S 5137, 55147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended § 3283, it

ungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) Landgraf v. US! Film Products, 148 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 27 Landgraf, 511 U.S 27, 30, 32 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 40 Lighte, 782 F.3d 120 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 98 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 59

visions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well. 149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 32

U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martindell v. Intl Tel. and Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir

assim 18 U.S.C. § 3509(aX8) 14 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990) 8 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) 12 Pub. L. No. 101-647 8 Other Authorities Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, 55147 (2003) 3 iv EFTA00028907 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memo

Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827 (1990) 3 Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478 (2012) Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) Leocal v. Ashcroft, 11 passim 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 11 Martin v. Hadix, 527 U.S. 343 (1999) 6 Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009) 12, 13 Shular v. United Stat