Epstein Secrets

o old, at most the door is barely ajar."). Substantial prejudice is just that—substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant's "proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative"); see also United States v. Henderson,

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

o old, at most the door is barely ajar."). Substantial prejudice is just that—substantial, actual, non-speculative prejudice. See United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102, 105-06 (2d Cir. 1982) (a defendant's "proof of prejudice must be definite and not speculative"); see also United States v. Henderson,

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) 205, 208 ix EFTA00095076 United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1982) United States v. Birrell, 159 43, 45 470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) 122 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2d 114 (2d

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en

ited States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990) 298, 300 United States v. Bin Laden, 91 F. Supp. 2d 600 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) 240 United States v. Birney, 686 F.2d 102 (2d Cir. 1982) 61, 65 United States v. Bbrell, 470 F.2d 113 (2d Cir. 1972) 183 EFTA00103009 United States v. Blakney, 941 F.2

eless would run afoul of Landgraf s considerations, and that he "expect[ed] that the Supreme Court's future decisions" would confirm such a reading. Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158, 163 n.6 (2d Cir. 2004) (Calabresi, J., "[s]peaking only for [him]self'). That footnote is too slender a reed to support Maxwell's en