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

est Palm Beach, FL 33401 WI Check County Whine Mien &OM CI MIAMI. OAHE O MONROE fl BROW AR D 16 PALM BEACH 3 MARTIN 0 SI. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 0 OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION O I V. S. Dovoramom PNWIr O 2 LI S.COPT/10CM Dekndani /13 (Place en - X' • Ott Bist Osyl Carol portion

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: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

est Palm Beach, FL 33401 (0 Cheek County Wheso Action Masa co MIAMI. DADS 0 MONROE 0 DROP/MID 4 PALM BEACH 0 MARTIN 0 ST. LUCIE 0 INDIAN RIVER 0 OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (lime err' Nom Box than III. C TIZENSIIIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES:rm. ea "X' In One Bet ro, annum En Danny Caen

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

, West Palm Beach, FL 33401 (d) Cheek County Where Action Aran (' M IAMI. DADE 0 MONROE 0 IROWARD 08 PALM BEACH 0 MARTIN 0 ST. LUCK 0 INDIAN RIVER 0 OKEECHOBEE HIOHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Moor art Om Boa Only) O I V.S. Ouctitmenl is 3 INdeallUoillon ?Wulff (U.S. Otnersusi Noes Petty) O 2 U

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 a Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can

TR ACT LAND IIIVOL VIE. /ee a reyS check COMIly Mkt AEISIXIMaNt 3 MIAMI. DADS 3 MONROE 3 MOW' PALM BEACH 3 MARTIN 3 ST. LUCIE 3 INDIAN RIVER 3 OKEECHOBEE 1414111LAHDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION nun Joon en own 7 1 1,74.4.04ettame 3 3 NNW.: 43.0014. 1710.011 03.6. 00,40..... Hos • Posy) 134.4.14