Epstein Secrets

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103273 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103343 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103308 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00103238 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00104652 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00105663 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00154640 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00085225 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00090494 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA

currently pending pretrial motions other than those seeking to suppress evidence, which the Court will resolve in due course. The motions, and this Opinion, deal exclusively with the S 1 superseding indictment and do not resolve any issues EFTA00092755 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 207 Filed 04/16/2

54. Congress enacted the limitations provision of the PROTECT Act because it found the prior statute of limitations was "inadequate in many cases." H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 108-63, at 54 (2003). For example, a person who abducted and raped a child could not be prosecuted beyond this extended limit—even if DNA