Epstein Secrets

LP Attorneys for Defendants Jeffery Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY: DARREN K. INDYKE SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 EFTA00285631 I877DOEC APPEARANCES (Continued) HADDON MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C. Attorneys

ry Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY:

, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Epstein BY:

ry Epstein, and BY: MICHAEL MILLER JUSTIN CHU DARREN K. INDYKE LLC Attorney for Defendant Jeffery Eps

dy 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. Supreme Court was con

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

4 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martin

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

779314 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) .Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungvs v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgralv. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36,41,42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Martin

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Marti

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

14 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 2, 2010) 111 Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461 (1997) 200 Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759 (1988) 222 Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994) 35,36, 41, 42 Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1 (2004) 56, 57 Madanes v. Madanes, 186 F.R.D. 279 (S.D.N.Y. 1999) 141 Marti

to intervene and stay the proceedings in Doe v. Indyke, No. 20 Civ. 484 (JGK), while the Government has

v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 624-30 (E.D. Va. 2019) (holding that the 2003 amendment of § 3283 applies to pre-enactment conduct). In Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244 (1994), the Supreme Court set forth a two-part framework for determining whether a statute applies retroactively. At step one of the