Epstein Secrets

k Court 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

ent 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 03 05 2010 Page 7 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 7 Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, al (ED. Ca

07743 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

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

13267 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

U.S. v. Scheidt Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010)• U.S. v. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. v. Monk 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. v. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

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

also U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. I (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. Reim, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S.'. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WI, 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832,

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

e U.S. I. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.Cal. Jan. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Renga 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)• U.S. . Ferenci 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane 2009 WL 2567832, fn.

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

lso U.S. Scheidt, Slip Copy, 2010 WL 144837, fn. 1 (E.D.CaI. Jan. II, 2010)- U.S.'. Rena, 2009 WI, 2579103, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009). U.S.' Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l