Epstein Secrets

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

ional principles against retroactivity. Further supporting the argument set forth by Defendant, Plaintiff describes the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

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

th by Defendant, Plaintiff describes EFTA00611594 Jane Doe v. Epstein Case No. 08-CV-80893-Marra-Johnson Page 6 the following language from the Landgraf decision as "a two step process for resolving retroactivity issues," (Response, p. 13): When a case implicates a federal statute enacted after the

ERSITY OF UTAH Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: PAUL CASSELL STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Attorneys for Defendants

LER & FLEXNER LLP Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: SIGRID MCCAWLEY S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Attorneys for Plaintiff BY: PAUL CASSELL STEPTOE & JOHNSON LLP Attorneys for Defendants Jeffery Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant

t has already occurred versus creating a new cause of action or a new civil remedy. The support for that, your Honor, is the U.S. Supreme Court in Landgraf v. USI Film Products, which I cited in my papers for a different proposition, but it's found at 511 U.S. 244. In that case, your Honor, the U.S. S