Epstein Secrets

stitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2

ESQ. Florida Bar No. 22 :62 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BU

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

ian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Respectfully submitted, ASP etu an ffrey Epstein By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 18 US

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

th.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/84

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

th.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/84

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

ED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP J. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A22 GREGORY W. COLEMAN. P.A. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JP-. PA ' BERNARD A. LEBEDEKER MARKT. LuTTIER. PA. MICHAEL J. PIKE DAVID A. YAREMA RONDA BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER 2ADRUTTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO Roy Black, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan &