Epstein Secrets

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the firm in

ary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the intemet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States I Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cyber

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the firm in

ary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the internet. See H.R. Cont Rep. No. 104458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cyber

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the time in

ary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the Internet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104.458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States' Searcy, 418 I3d 1193, 1197 (11ih Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cybers

rts concluded that a victim of uncharged conduct should not be afforded statutory protections.'°! Yet none of these cases—United States v. Turner,'°? Searcy v. Paletz,'® or Searcy v. Skinner'°*—provide strong support for OLC’s position. Turner is a particularly poor fit. Although OLC’s memorandum characte

r its conclusion. But, here again, its analysis is misleading. OLC relies on a passage from Senate floor colloquy between Senators Jon Kyl and Dianne Feinstein regarding the CVRA’s scope. In OLC’s recounting of the legislative history, the floor statements “emphasize that the nght to confer relates to the co

Victims Constitutional Amendment Network 3°) approached the President and Congress about a federal amendment. 3' In April 22, 1996, Senators Kyl and Feinstein introduced a federal victims’ rights amendment with the backing of President Clinton. 3? The intent of the amendment was to "restore, preserve, and p

ainst individuals who have not been convicted of a crime." Jn re W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. Co., 409 F.3d 555, 564 (2d Cir. 2005) (emphasis added); accord Searcy v. Skinner, No. 6:06-1418-GRA-WMC, 2006 WL 1677177, at 2 (D.S.C. June 16, 2006). Like the constitutional amendment it was patterned on, the CVRA exte