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

Fact Clause prohibits a retroactive application of the 2006 amended version. Even under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, 114 S.Ct. 1483 (1994), pertaining to civil statutes, not only is there no express intent by Congress to apply the new statute to pas

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

3.1 It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and

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

.1 It is an axiom of law that "retroactivity is not favored in the law." Bowen, 488 U.S., at 208, 109 S.Ct., at 471 (1988). As eloquently stated in Landqraf v. USI Film Products, 114 S.Ct. 1483, 1497, 511 U.S. 244, 265-66 (1994): ... the presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted in our jurisprudence, and