Epstein Secrets

cco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 (2000) 8 Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S., 409 F.3d 106 (2d Cir. 2005) 8

ecome obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the far-distant past." Id. at 114-15. In Landgraf, the Supreme Court articulated a two-step framework to evaluate the proposed retroactive application of a statute to a particular case: [T]he court

es Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF - P.A. March 29, 2

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

es Attorney 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN STUMPF P.A. JESSICA FONSEC

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

TRONIC MAIL Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Komspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Black: Thank you for meeting with our Office last week. During our discussion, you and your colleagues raised three issues: (1) whether our Office would

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

RONIC MAIL Roy Black, Esq. Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf P.A. 201 S. Biscayne Blvd, Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Black: Thank you for meeting with our Office last week. During our discussion, you and your colleagues raised three issues: (1) whether our Office would

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

Roe In. Scrorler Ail 0561 141A (I 391f11 0 162 Black Lunt:1423) 0161 DIWODIWW 1405(g)) 3 564 *SID Th

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