Epstein Secrets

ded version. Even if one were to argue that the statute is "civil" and the damages thereunder are "civil" in nature, under the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Landgraf 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

onymous terms ... and include( ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs, 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cu. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cu. 1982), abrogated

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. 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

onymous terms ... and include[ ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir. 1982), abrogated

e, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States v. 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

onymous terms ... and include[ ] all damages other than punitive or exemplary damages." 25 C.J.S. Damages § 2 (1966). (Emphasis added). See also, Fanin v. U.S. Dept. of Veteran Affairs 2009 WL 1677233 (11th Cir. June 17, 2009), citing Fitzpatrick v. IRS, 665 F.2d 327, 331 (11th Cir. 1982), abrogated