Epstein Secrets

ernment's files"); cf. In re Sikr, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a general

er the power to order disclosure of documents to victims, as nothing in either of those acts empowered the district court to do so); United States'. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1317 (10th Cir. 2008) (following holding "that the CVRA does not provide 'victims' with a right of access to the government's files

nment's files"); cf. In re Slier, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a general

other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly") (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) 10 EFTA00085718 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 11 of 32 (decli

rnment's files"); cf. In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a gene

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

rnment's files"); cf. In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a gene

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

MORIN FL MN UPTURNED MINION MN 124 03/15 OISIP WPALMBEACN FL MIN 009 AIRTIME MINUTES LAKE WORTH FL WI MIN N ULINED NAILIKNO 175 03AS 061/P Kenna MIN UNLIMITED NTWKNO MN MONAING Mu UNLIMITED NAVKND Mos 25 03/15 01.31P MN UNLIMITED NWKNO MIN /COMING MIN UNLINED NWrion 'As 12I 03AS 09

e 38.15 DETAIL OF CURRENT ACTIVITY Total Curfew Subscriber monthly Charges and Croats Total Current Monthly Charges 38.75 VOICE USAGE FORIEl l Hunter Only Charge SUMMARY OF CURRENT ACTIVITY Item Ow Time ftelmt Cat To used Rate DiSaiptIOn Charge 027120201P 02/12 03:18P 02/12 07:10P 01/t20

ernment's files"); cl In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a gene

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

rnment's files"); cf. In re Siler, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a gene

denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see al

other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly") (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) 10 EFTA00010551 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/24/2019 P

nment's files"); cf. In re Slier, 571 F.3d 604, 609 (6th Cir. 2009) (holding that "the CVRA does not provide an independent right to obtain PSRs"); Kenna v. United States, 453 F.3d 1136, 1137 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming district court's rejection of victim's argument that the CVRA conferred a general

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (same). Interestingly, Congress has since essentially overruled both of those decisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771

exercise those rights meaningfully." DE 189 at 9 (citing U.S. v. BP Products North America, Inc., 2008 WL 501321 at *14 (S.D. Tex. 2008)); see also Kenna v. United 12 Jane Doe 1 and 2 continue to assert their position that, if partial rescission is not possible for some reason, then total rescission

d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (same). Interestingly, Congress has since essentially overruled both of those decisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771