Epstein Secrets

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00103278 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00103348 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00103313 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00103243 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00104657 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00105668 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00154645 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00085230 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00090499 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres

gh in or around September 2007" including five enumerated offenses; (2) "any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office"; and (3) "any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation." 6 EFTA00092760 Case 1:20-

207 Filed 04/16/21 Page 16 of 34 However, it also concludes that even if the statute were ambiguous, it would properly apply to these charges. At Lanfgraf s second step, the Court asks whether application of the statute to past conduct would have impermissible retroactive effects. "[A] statute has pres