Epstein Secrets

ein, et al. Page 6 not a procedural one. As discussed more fully in Defendant's motion to dismiss, the statutory scheme enacted and amended under "Masha's Law" is consitently referred to as criminal penalties and punishments directed at those who sexually exploit and abuse minors. Also, Plaintiff i

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply the judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

mendments (cited above) where Congress unambiguously expressed its intent regarding retroactive application, there is no expression with respect to Masha's Law, the 2006 amended version of §2255. An EFTA00175271 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 31 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/01/2009 Page 9 of 11 Ja

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

of the history and purpose behind 18 U.S.C. §2255 and the assertion that "Congress specifically intended for the law to apply retroactively to her (Masha) even though she had already been abused and had already filed suit under §2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Reco

ional principles against retroactivity. Further supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

of the history and purpose behind 18 U.S.C. §2255 and the assertion that "Congress specifically intended for the law to apply retroactively to her (Masha) even though she had already been abused and had already filed suit under §2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Reco

th by Defendant, Plaintiff describes EFTA00611594 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 6 the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the