Epstein Secrets

ates v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Milan, No. 08-760,2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28,2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Milo! 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM

of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. 30 EFTA00099997 the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that concern is entirely separate from extending the statute of limitations for live claims, which is what Congress did here. Critica

es v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Mitan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (

Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes

es v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Mitan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (

Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes

on on its applicability would have been expressed by Congress. See generally Zannino, supra, at 56-57 l e Court recognizes that in United States Mitchell, 600 F.Supp. 164 .D.Ca1.1985) Judge Patel held that the Bail Reform Act of 1984 was inapplicable to defendants admitted to bail under the prio

ct future behavior *1039 and that the question is so vague as to be meaning- less. That calls into play the concept our Court of Appeals applied to the Ex Post Facto r Clause (albeit in a different con t from the present one) in United States Sutton, 521 F.2d 1385, 1390- (7th ir.1975) (quoting United State

es v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782 (2d Cir. 1996) 161 United States v. Milan, No. 08-760, 2009 WL 2328870 (E.D. Pa. July 28, 2009) 218 United States v. Mitchell, 966 F.2d 92 (2d Cir. 1992) 144 United States v. Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d 558 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 268 United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (

of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. 30 EFTA00103055 the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that concern is entirely separate from extending the statute of limitations for live claims, which is what Congress did here. Critica