Epstein Secrets

.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

ed]") simply because a particular civil plaintiff happens to reach his or her 18th birthday. III. A Stay is Mandatory Despite Resulting "Delay" to Civil Lawsuits. Inherent in any § 3509(k) stay is delay to the progress (discovery, trial, appeal) of all related civil lawsuits. Congress recognized this in enac

g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory 'shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory 'shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

r[ed]") simply because a particular civil plaintiff happens to reach his or her 18th birthday. IV. A Stay is Mandatory Despite Resulting "Delay" to Civil Lawsuits. Inherent in any § 3509(k) stay is delay to the progress (discovery, trial, appeal) of all related civil lawsuits. Congress recognized this in enac

e.g., Lopez' Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc. I. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) (explaining that "the mandatory `shall' . . . normally creates an obligation imperv

[ed]") simply because a particular civil plaintiff happens to reach his or her 18th birthday. IV. A Stay is Mandatory Despite Resulting "Delay" to Civil Lawsuits. Inherent in any § 3509(k) stay is delay to the progress (discovery, trial, appeal) of all related civil lawsuits. Congress recognized this in enac