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

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

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

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

assim 18 U.S.C. § 3509(aX8) 14 18 U.S.C. § 3509(k) (1990) 8 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M)(i) 12 Pub. L. No. 101-647 8 Other Authorities Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, 55147 (2003) 3 iv EFTA00028907 --- PAGE BREAK --- Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Reply Memo

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