Epstein Secrets

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

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, fn.1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual dama

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

n. 11, 2010); U.S. I. Rain, 2009 WL 2579103, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Ferenci, 2009 WL 2579102, fn. 1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.1 (ED. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). As to the meaning of "actual damage

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

11, 2010); U.S. I. Remo, 2009 WI, 2579103, fn. 1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009)• U.S. Ferenc', 2009 WI. 2579102, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. 19, 2009); U.S. I. Monk, 2009 WL 2567831, fn. I (E.D. Cal. Aug. IS, 2009); U.S. I. Zane, 2009 WL 2567832, fn.l (E.D. Cal. Aug. 18 2009). In each of these cases, the refere