Epstein Secrets

l Amendment to Protect Crime Victims, S.J. Res. 1: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 108th Cong. 128-29 (2003) (statement of Sen. Patrick Leahy), see also Steven J. Twist & Daniel Seiden, The Proposed Victims’ Rights Amendment: A Brief Point/Counterpoint, 5 PHOENIX L. REv. 341, 356, 378 (2012

acts, “they would have taken steps to object” to the plea agreement, and that they believed criminal prosecution to be “extremely important”). 4 See ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING Law: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 56 (2012). °° 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a) (2012) (enumerating eight rights), id. § 3771(c)

nial Revolution in Criminal Justice: The Return of the Victim, 13 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 649, 650 (1976). 5 Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 834 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted). See generally Douglas Evan Beloof, Paul G. Cassell & Steve J. Twist, Victims in Criminal Procedu

stitutional amendment. Congress is watching to see whether the Judiciary (and the Executive) will fully and fairly implement this new Act. As Senator Leahy warned, "Passage of this bill will necessitate careful oversight of its implementation by Congress." 1! Construing the CVRA to require changes is al

now (D-Ml} Chairman Thad Cochran (R-MS) Several Democratson the committee with significant seniority are in line to choose other ranking positions: Leahy - Judiciary; Murray - HELP; Feinstein - Intelligence; Durbin, who serves as the Assistant Democratic Leader, and doesn’t take a ranking member positi

gh legal action or public pressure. Trump also intends to immediately begin the process of filling the Supreme Court vacancy created by the death of Antonin Scalia in early 2016 —one that could spark fireworkson Capitol Hilland acrossthe country’s highly charged political environment. How Republicans, Democrats,

the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution

tions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell 17 EFTA00020277 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-003

the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution

tions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell 17 EFTA00022107 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-003

the Constitution, but a law that extends an un-expired statute of limitations does not. Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 632-33 (2003). Senator Leahy, who co- sponsored the PROTECT Act, expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was "of doubtful constitution

tions that a deceased witness might have provided favorable testimony do not justify dismissing an indictment for delay. See, e.g., United States v. Scala, 388 F. Supp. 2d 396, 399-400 (S.D.N.Y. 2005). The Court agrees with this approach. Maxwell 17 EFTA00029556 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 1:20-cr-003