Epstein Secrets

for Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Fanner, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00207708 Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 128 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/05/2010 Page 33 of 36 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case N

ounse or ant in e a e ase No. 084089-3 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice EFTA00207708 Case 9:08-cv-

amendments were made by § 707 of the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, Pub. L. No. 109-248, 120 Stat. 587, 650 (2006), and are known as "Masha's Law." As Senator Kerry—the author of Masha's Law—explained: What Masha's law does, and what is incorporated in here, is it changes "any minor" t

nsel for Defen ant Je rey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Counsel for Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Vic Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Robert D. Critton, Jr. ROBERT D. CRITION JR. ESQ. MICHAEL J. PIKE,

Plaintiff in Related Case No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Vic Co-counsel for Plaintiff Jane Doe Re

of the history and purpose behind 18 U.S.C. §2255 and the assertion that "Congress specifically intended for the law to apply retroactively to her (Masha) even though she had already been abused and had already filed suit under §2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Reco

Defendant Jeffrey Epstein Brad Edwards, Esq. Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, PL aurae or a ntri in e ate ase No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Co-counsel for PlaintiffJane Doe EFTA00611598 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Mans-Johnson Page 10 Respectfully s

ae or a ntri in e ate ase No. 08-80893 Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Pro Hac Vice Co-counsel for PlaintiffJane

of the history and purpose behind 18 U.S.C. §2255 and the assertion that "Congress specifically intended for the law to apply retroactively to her (Masha) even though she had already been abused and had already filed suit under §2255," (Response, p. 14), is not even supported by the Congressional Reco