Epstein Secrets

in, et al. Page 11 Isidro M. Garcia, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

rcia(a:bellsouth.net Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

800 Miami, FL 33130 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

Case No. 0S-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 10 Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defen ant Je rey Ep

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

CM/ECF on this 22nd day of April, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey E

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

[email protected] Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

0 Fax: 305 358-2382 Counsel for Plaintiff Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P

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

day of 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbu

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