Epstein Secrets

erica, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC N: DATE FILED: 4/16/21 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey

d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond

imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort

erica, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC N: DATE FILED: 4/16/21 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey

d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond

imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort

merica, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC 0: DATE FILED: 4/16/21 20-cr-330 (MN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: In June 2020, a grand jury returned a six-count indictment charging Ghislaine Maxwell with facilitating the late financier Jeffrey

d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court has set out a two-step framework to determine whether a federal statute applies to past conduct. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). Courts look first to the language of the statute. If the statute states that it applies to past cond

imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.'" Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 56 (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mort

merica, —v— Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY PILED DOC N: DATE FILED:8/13/21 20-cr-330 (AJN) OPINION & ORDER ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: On April 16, 2021, the Court issued an Opinion & Order granting in part and denying in part Ghislaine Maxwell's various pretrial m

t the provision nonetheless applies retroactively to cover that conduct. In its April 16, 2021 Opinion & Order, the Court analyzed § 3283 under the Landgraf v. USA Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994) framework and concluded that the limitations period applied retroactively so long as the previous lim