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

onymous terms ... and include( ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cu. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cu. 1982), abrogated

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

onymous terms ... and include[ ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir. 1982), abrogated

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

onymous terms ... and include[ ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir. 1982), abrogated