Epstein Secrets

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

rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since

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

rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since

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

rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since

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

rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14. But Bridges is inapposite, since it

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

rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since