4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf v. USI Film Products, supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute wi
stitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2
t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to
94814 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by
t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to
83860 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by
t that the statute is to apply retroactively, and, accordingly, the statute in effect during the time of the alleged conduct is to apply. Landgraf USI Film Products supra, at 1493, ("A statement that a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even arguably suggest that it has any application to
33509 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by
Entities connected to both USI Film Products and The New York Court

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
United States
LOCATIONLandgraf
PERSONFBI
ORGANIZATION
Bradley Edwards
PERSONJane Doe
PERSON
Julie K. Brown
PERSONJack Goldberger
PERSON
Legislature
ORGANIZATIONAtterbury Goldberger & Weiss
ORGANIZATION
Bowen
PERSON
Merritt
PERSON
John Kerry
PERSON
Martinez
PERSON
Eric Schmidt
PERSONMichael J. Pike
PERSONTurner Elkhorn Mining Co.
ORGANIZATION
George W. Bush
PERSON
Alan Dershowitz
PERSON
the United States Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION