Epstein Secrets

istrate Judgment VI. RELATED/RE-FILED CASE(S). (See IMIniCliole second pale): a) Re-filed Case 0 YES 473 NO b) Related Cases 01 YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do n

NO b) Related Cases 01 YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTIO

94814 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

Magistrate Judgment VI. RELATED/RE-FILED CASF.(S). (See hoc/moons second up). s) Re-filed Case 0 YES ,f6140 b) Related Cases IF YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTION Ci14Ih9 U.S. Civil Statute under which you am filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not

40 b) Related Cases IF YES ONO JUDGE Kenneth A. Marra DOCKET NUMBER See Attached. VII. CAUSE OF ACTIO

83860 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

that acknowledgment to the USAO. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 211' day of August, 2008. /en KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: all counsel of record By signing below, I certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by

this 211' day of August, 2008. /en KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished t

33509 addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-CV-80893-MARRA-JOHNSON Plaintiff; v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defend

k Court addressed the issue of whether §2255 is a civil or criminal statute for purposes of the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. The New York Court stated that "looking to the plain language of §2255(a), it is clear that the statutory intent was to provide a civil remedy. This is exemplified by