Epstein Secrets

tatute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct 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 e

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

USTICE ATTORNEYS July 6, 2009 Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 E. Broward Blvd, 7th Floor Ft. Lauderdale. FL 33394 Re: B.B. JEFFREY EPSTEIN OUR FILE NO.: 080303 Dear Ms. Villafana: As you are aware, this firm represents Plaintiff, Jane Doe, a/k/a/ B.B. in the civil lit

43 F.3d 72, 81-82 (2d Cir. 2003). These courts have drawn a distinction between the legally established definition of "obscenity," as recognized by the United States Supreme Court in Miller and the terms "pornography" and "pornographic materials." These courts have also recognized that prohibitions against convicted sexual of

971, 974 (Fla. 1987); Ivey v. Chicago Ins. Co., 410 So. 2d 494, 497 (Fla. 1982). Each District Court of Appeal also uses staff analyses. See, e.g., B.B. v. M, 933 So. 2d 57, 65 n.8 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006); Burke v. Esposito, 972 So. 2d 1024, 1027-28 (Fla. 2d DCA 2008); State v. Calderon, 951 So. 2d 103

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum, pursuant to motions to unseal, filed by non-parties, E.W., B.B. and Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post"),I The confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between the Unite

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

uderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for E.W. SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for B.B. DEANNA K. SHULLMAN 400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY