Epstein Secrets

ctual privity with them. See, e.g., Thompkins LW Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate."') (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Moreover, the additional civil remedies that Petitioners seek to engraft onto the CVRA are not recognized remedies within the cr

ctual privity with them. See, e.g., Thompkins LW Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate."') (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Moreover, the additional civil remedies that Petitioners seek to engraft onto the CVRA are simply not recognized remedies within

press statutory authorization for such an award. Joe v. United States, 772 F.2d 1535, 1536 (11th Cir.

a of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.") (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Because Petitioners seek remedies not authorized by the CVRA's plain language, their requests should be denied. What's more, th

l privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

l privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

ual privity with them. See, e.g., Thompkins v. LW Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed 'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an `elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute exp

l privity with them. See, e.g., 77tompkins v. Lir Joe Records, Inc., 476 F.3d 1294, 1315 (11th Cir. 20

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an `elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

SD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 11 of 32 (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expre

of sovereign immunity bars an award of attorneys fees against the United States unless there is express statutory authorization for such an award. Joe v. United States, 772 F.2d 1535, 1536 (11th Cir. 1985). Waivers of sovereign immunity are to be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign. Id. (