Epstein Secrets

on 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 concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

on 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 concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

745 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 27, 1998) 102 Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616 (1886) 101 iv EFTA00095071 Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972) 78 Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953) 38 Bronston v. United States, 409 U.S. 352 (1973) 121 Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969) 101

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

on 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 concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en