Epstein Secrets

006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount a

ted States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil

006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount a

ted States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil

d to appeal restitution ruling); United States v. Perry, 360 F.8d 519 (6th Cir. 2004) (crime vic- tims al

ime that the Justice Department filed this brief, no Court of Appeals agreed with the Tenth Circuit. At the time, three

eated under §2255 as an additional means of punishing sexual predators, along with other penalties and punishments. Even the quotation from Senator Kerry, quoted at p. 7 of Plaintiff's response, in amending §2255 in 2006 confirms that the creation of the presumptive minimum damage amount is meant as

sed minimum. As explained by the Landqraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,2 2 In Landaraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before EFTA00201268 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 78

ge amount is meant as an additional penalty against those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012-02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

as an additional penalty against 16 EFTA00194810 those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards, supra (

uct 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 new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

s an additional penalty against 16 EFTA00183856 those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL, 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I i th Cir. 1998), and U.S. Edwards, supra

uct 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 new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

ge amount is meant as an additional penalty against those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012-02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. v. Siegel, supra (11th Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra

of the amount of actual damages a plaintiff has suffered and proven. The new 3 In Landoraf, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. The Court determined

as an additional penalty against 16 EFTA00233505 those who sexually exploit or abuse children. 2006 WL 2034118, 152 Cong. Rec. S8012- 02. Senator Kerry refers to the statutorily imposed damage amount as "penalties." Id. The cases of U.S. I. Siegel, supra (I I's Cir. 1998), and U.S. . Edwards supra (

duct 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 new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the effective date of the Act. 'Ile Court determine