Epstein Secrets

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456.462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 18 Where the statute's words are unambiguous—as the are here—the "judicial inquiry is complete." Merritt v. Dillard Paver Co., 120 F.3d 1181, 1186 (11th Cir. 1997) (citation omitted)). Under the 2003 version of the statute, only minors could initiate su

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S. 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimina

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S. 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimina

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. EFTA00222831 Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13 E

man -Crystal Broo Kate Hannan - Pert Pine David Brown - Port Pixie Gary Jeffery Brockhouse - Port Pine

Paul (SAPOL)- pwal, Scat ( ihde.I4APOli• Weliams Linda (SAPOLt ean. Swart ISAPOL-14401; r P011 ...eyeyo C tAZ et;at Harvey. Peter (SAPOL-PHO); Merritt. Philip ISAPOL1- Parr AP g Patterson Craig (SAPOL); Molts. Paul (4APOQ. Shanahan. Joanne (SAPOLI;Verne/to. Giovanni (SAPOI ' :ccehorneettairc co

etramethylplatinacycbpentane", Whitesides, G. M., Hackett, M., Brainard, R. L., Lavalleye, J.-P. P. M., Sowinski, A. F., Izumi, A. N., Moore, S. S., Brown, D. W. and Staudt, E. M., Organometal/ics, 1985, 4, 1819-1830. hup://ginwgroup.harvard.cdu/publications 1980s.html I 1/6/2008 EFTA_R1_01521519 E

nd Tinkham, M., Adv. Mater., 1997, 9, 52-55. 537. "Using Self-Assembled Monolayers to Study the Interactions of Man-Made Materials with Proteins", Merritt, M. V., Mrksich, M. and Whitesides, G. M., in Principles of Tissue Engineering, R. P. Lanza, W. L. Chick and R. Langer, Eds., R. G. Landes Co., Aust

§§ 9-10, prohibit legislatures from singling out disfavored persons and meting out summary punishment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States'. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722, 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965). The Due Process Clause also protects the interests in fair notice and repos

at language, and `[c]purls have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187." See also Dodd . U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am Jur.2d Statutes §124 . Title 18 of the U.S.C. is entitled "Crimes and Crimin

hment for past conduct. See, e.g., United States Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

hat language, and lijourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of Ethel provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1 187." See also Dodd U S , 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. Title 18 of the is entitled "Crimes and Criminal Proc

See supra p. 33. FN 10. See supra n. 2. FN I 1. Defendant's reliance on United States v. Brown, 801 F.2d 352 (8th Cir.1986), is misplaced. In Brown, the Eighth Circuit determined that the defend- ant had breached a cooperation agree- ment, thus permitting the government to prosecute him for the

he Agreement Acted in Good Faith [I] A party who materially breaches a cooperation or plea agreement may not claim its benefits. United States v. Merritt, 988 F.2d 1298, 1313 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 508 U.S. 961, 113 S.Ct. 2933, 124 1,.Ed.2d 683 (1993); United Slates v. Tilley. 964 F.2d 66, 70 (1st

nt for past conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 456-462, 85 S.Ct. 1707, 1719-1722,

at language, and '[c]ourts have no authority to alter statutory language.... We cannot add to the terms of [the] provision what Congress left out.' Merritt, 120 F.3d at 1187.° See also Dodd v. U.S., 125 S.Ct. 2478 (2005); 73 Am.Jur.2d Statutes §124. EFTA00175293 • Case 9:09-cv-80469-KAM Document 13