Epstein Secrets

Justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

anting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

e Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 51 -3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Un

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96

ESQ. Florida Bar No. 22 :62 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BU

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. I, 17, 96

SQ. Florida Bar No. 224 I 62 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BU

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

ent 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 21 of 25 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 21 By: ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 3401 unse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein) 1 See 18 U.S.C. §2707(c), of the Stored Comm

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

ian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Respectfully submitted, ASP etu an ffrey Epstein By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 18 US

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

th.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/84

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhom Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one di

te act relied upon. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs entire action. By: ROBERT D RITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. EFTA00222838 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 27 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 27