3
Shared Docs
0
Same-Page
4 / 3
Mentions
11 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. Applying it to conduct for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired does not. Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley
Page: EFTA00029555 →as a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offen
Page: EFTA00029561 →most extraordinary circumstances justify departure from this general rule. United States v. Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d 406, 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing Gaudin, 515 U.S. at 522-23). The charged statements do not fall within this narrow exception. Maxwell contends that the questions did not relate to the se
Page: EFTA00029562 →11 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. Applying it to conduct for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired does not. Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley
Page: EFTA00020276 →as a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offen
Page: EFTA00020282 →11 U.S. at 290). Thus, applying a new statute of limitations to previously time- barred claims has an impermissible retroactive effect. Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d at 407. Applying it to conduct for which the statute of limitations has not yet expired does not. Vernon v. Cassadaga Valley
Page: EFTA00022106 →as a natural tendency to influence the court or if a truthful answer might reasonably lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 509 (1995); United States v. Kross, 14 F.3d 751, 753-54 (2d Cir. 1994). Like knowing falsity, materiality is an element of the offen
Page: EFTA00022112 →Entities connected to both Gaudin and Acceptance Co., LLC

United States
LOCATION
Medina
PERSONNejad
PERSONThompson
PERSONChacko
PERSON
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATIONMarkiewicz
PERSONSampson
PERSONWerner
PERSONForde
ORGANIZATION
Napolitano
PERSON
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSONMostafa
PERSONConcepcion
PERSONSalameh
PERSONNersesian
PERSON
Murray
PERSONTramunti
PERSONJosephberg
PERSON