Epstein Secrets

.. M TeNple444 Neraber) GARCIA LAW FIRM, P.A. 224 DATURA STREETM SUITE 900 WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 JEFFREY EPSTEIN ANC I KELL Mar. 24, 2009 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S• DIET. GT. 5.0. OF FLA. • MIAMI County of Residence of First Listed Defendant PALM BEACH (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND

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

HERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Civil Action No. 10 - 803 09 DOE No. 103, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. FILED bytt)....... FEB 2 3 20W STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK 01ST CT of ft.A. - MIAMI COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, ■ Doe No. 103 ("Plaintiff% brings this Complaint against Defendan

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Civil Action No. 10-80309 JANE DOE No. 103, Plaintiff, I JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. FILED byjaD C FEB 2 3 2010 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK IJ S 01ST CT 8. C. of FI.A. - MIAMI COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff, Jane Doe No. 103 ("Plaintiff'), brings this Complaint ag

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply