Epstein Secrets

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

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dail. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). EFTA00175287 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/

ent 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/2009 Page 21 of 25 C.M.A. v. Epstein, et al. Page 21 By: ROBERT D. C ON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No 224162 MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 3401 unse or e en ant Jeffrey Epstein) 1 See 18 U.S.C. §2707(c), of the Stored Comm

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dail. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). EFTA00201260 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/08/

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

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. I). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 DaII. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns.

jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

l of otherwise barred claims fell squarely within a category of ex post facto laws condemned by the Supreme Court's seminal ex post facto decision, Calder v. Bull—namely, laws providing for "punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. 386, 391 (1

jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

l of otherwise barred claims fell squarely within a category of ex post facto laws condemned by the Supreme Court's seminal ex post facto decision, Calder v. Bull—namely, laws providing for "punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. 386, 391 (1

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

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. I). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 DaII. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). These provisions demonstrate that retroactive statutes raise particular concerns.

jagesq®bellsouth.net Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 mpike®bc1claw.com Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

l of otherwise barred claims fell squarely within a category of ex post facto laws condemned by the Supreme Court's seminal ex post facto decision, Calder v. Bull—namely, laws providing for "punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. 386, 391 (1

Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South Suite 1400 FL 33401-5012 Fax• 561-R15-R691 Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 Burman Craton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Be Telephone: Facsimile: 15-3148

l of otherwise barred claims fell squarely within a category of ex post facto laws condemned by the Supreme Court's seminal ex post facto decision, Calder v. Bull—namely, laws providing for "punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. 386, 391 (1

te act relied upon. WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court dismiss Plaintiffs entire action. By: ROBERT D RITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. EFTA00222838 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 27 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, et al. Page 27

irected to Congress (§ 9, cl. 3), the other to the States (§ 10, cl. 1). We have construed the Clauses as applicable only to penal legislation. See Calder v. Bull, 3 Dail. 386, 390-391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (1798) (opinion of Chase, J.). EFTA00222819 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/

[email protected] Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully submitted: By: Robert D. Critton, Florida Bar No. 2 162 rcrit@bc1claw. Michael J. Pike, Esq. Florida Bar No. 617296 [email protected] Burman Critton Luther & Coleman, P.A. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401

l of otherwise barred claims fell squarely within a category of ex post facto laws condemned by the Supreme Court's seminal ex post facto decision, Calder v. Bull—namely, laws providing for "punishments, where the party was not, by law, liable to any punishment." Id. at 612 (quoting Calder, 3 Dall. 386, 391 (1