Epstein Secrets

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

mproperly alleged multiple causes of actions under 18 U.S.C. §2255 in an attempt to multiply the presumptive minimum damages is the case of Gray v. Darby, slip copy, 2009 WL 805435 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2009). In that action, the plaintiff, a minor four year old boy, was enrolled at a church childcare f

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 (11'" Cir. 1998), and U.S. v. Edwards, supra

se of action under §2255, a plaintiff is required to prove all the elements of one of the statutory enumerated criminal predicate acts. See Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (ED. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action. I. A. The s

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

legations setting forth the requisite elements of the cited predicate act. See Smith v. Husband, 376 F.Supp.2d, and 428 Supp.2d, supra; and Gray v. Darby, 2009 WL 805435 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 25, 2005), requiring allegations/evidence to establish predicate act under 18 U.S.C. §2255 to state cause of action.