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

dren. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18

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

ren. 2006 WL, 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I i th Cir. 1998), and U.S. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18

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

dren. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I I's Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18