Epstein Secrets

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply tho judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

anting the relief requested above, and for such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. By: ROBERT D. C ITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF.

e Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Amiens United States of America represented by Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Michael James Pike Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman 515 N Flagler Drive Suite 400 West Palm Beach , FL 33401-2918 Fax: 51 -3148 Email: ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Un

ng on or commenced after the date of enactment of this Act,' " "might possibly have qualified as a clear statement for retroactive effect" (quoting Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 260, 114 S.Ct. at 1494)); Rivers v. Roadway Express, Inc., 511 U.S. 298, 307-08, 114 S.Ct. 1510, 1517, 128 L.Ed.2d 274 (1994) (noting

ly retroactively. Congress may prescribe the temporal reach of a statute by stating that it applies to pre-enactment conduct, the first step in the Landgraf analysis, or a statute may be silent regarding temporal reach, in which case courts apply the judicial presumption against retroactivity. This pres

ndant requests that this Court grant his motion to dismiss and strike. By: ROBERT . CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida B r No. 224162 L.Mi:Icicla)&gpLn MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 Certificate of Service I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of th

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

ian Avenue South Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5012 Respectfully submitted, ASP etu an ffrey Epstein By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) 18 US

n. It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in ou

th.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/84

ional principles against retroactivity. Further supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Vic Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. ROBERT D. CRITION JR. ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITFON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN (Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00611611

th by Defendant, Plaintiff describes EFTA00611594 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 6 the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

Hac Vice Co-counsel for PlaintiffJane Doe EFTA00611598 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Mans-Johnson Page 10 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. la BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN (Co-Counsel for De endant Je ey Epstein) EFTA00611599

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landgraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

th.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted, By: ROBERT D. CR1TTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 [email protected] BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTHER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 561/84

entitled to a determination as a matter of law that the statute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply

ED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP J. MICHAEL BURMAN. P.A22 GREGORY W. COLEMAN. P.A. ROBERT D. CRITTON. JP-. PA ' BERNARD A. LEBEDEKER MARKT. LuTTIER. PA. MICHAEL J. PIKE DAVID A. YAREMA RONDA BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER 2ADRUTTED TO PRACTICE IN FLORIDA AND COLORADO Roy Black, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan &