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

nclude( ] 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 on other grounds by Doe v. Chao

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

include( ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanini. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick,. IRS 665 F.2d 327, 331 (I Id' Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Poet Chao,

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

.. and include' all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin I. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick'. IRS 665 F.2d 327, 331 (I Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Doe'. Chao, 54

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

d include[ all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, 2009 WI. 1677233 (111h Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick IRS 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Doe'. Chao,