Epstein Secrets

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. L U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

d by CM/ECF on this t5 day of March, 2010: Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Atterbury Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. Counsel for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. I, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 38 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2009 Page 17 of 18 Respectfully Submitted, Plaintiff, by One of Her Counsel, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Las Olas City Centre 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone

Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of

Justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11 th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Cald

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96

Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (I Ith Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Cald

suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. I, 17, 96

y or punishment for the alleged criminal conduct. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998). U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constituti

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one d

e penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. I. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 ( I 1th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

e penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. I. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 ( I 1th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. 1998); and generally, Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. 386, 390, 1 L.Ed. 648, 1798 WL 587 (Calder) (1798). The United States Constitution

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Er Post Facto Clauses, one d

the penalty or punishment for the alleged crime. U.S. Const. Art. 1, §9, cl. 3, §10, cl. 1. U.S. v. Seigel, 153 F.3d 1256 (11th Cir. 1998); U.S. v. Edwards, 162 F.3d 87 (3d Cir. EFTA00222820 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/06/2009 Page 9 of 29 Jane Doe II v. Epstein, e

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective application under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery v. Turner Elkhom Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FN19. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one di

. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I I's Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards supra (3d Cir. 1998), also support Defendant's position that application of the current version of 18 U.S.C. §2255 would be in clear violation of t

justification sufficient to validate a statute's prospective applicagion under the Clause "may not suffice" to warrant its retroactive application. Usery Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 17, 96 S.Ct. 2882, 2893, 49 L.Ed.2d 752 (1976). FNI9. Article I contains two Ex Post Facto Clauses, one dir