Epstein Secrets

.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 Communications Act for provision at issue. Title 18. Crimes and Cr

Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version. Even under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil statutes, not only is there no express intent by Congress to apply the new statute to pas

Avenue South Suite 1400 01-5012 Co-Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Respectfully sub By: MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. R., ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 Watt Palm Roartt Fl 33401 (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) ENDNOTES: 1 In paragraph 11 of her Complain

3.1 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 Landqraf 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 our jurisprudence, and

ant Jeffrey Epstein Respectful) By: ROBERT D. RITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar o. 224162 reritAbcicl w.com MICHAEL J. PIKE, ESQ. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400 ch, FL 33401 Fax: (Co-counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein) EFTA00175273 Caie 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 20

.1 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 Landqraf 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 our jurisprudence, and