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

des strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States" Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens I. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

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

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

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

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

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

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

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

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

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

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 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 S

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

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 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 S