Epstein Secrets

the Government has committed. Settled law holds that "the nature of the remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the . . . violation." Nichols v. Hopper, 173 F.3d 820, 824 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). And, "[a]t the initial pleading stage, a plaintiff may establish standi

the CVRA. Since the earliest days of our nation, it has been settled law that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . . . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). Moreover, "[i]f the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts have

estions would be a waste of time. Moreover, generally "the nature of the remedy is to be determined by the nature and scope of the . . . violation." Nichols v. Hopper, 173 F.3d 820, 824 (11th Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). Until the Court identifies the scope of the Government's violations, it

This argument contradicts fundamental American jurisprudence, which holds that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy . .." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 163 (1803) (internal quotation omitted). 'I'he victims have deferred full briefing on the remedy issue because they understa

equitable remedies after petitioners have proven a violation of statutory provisions. It Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004); Nichols v. Ho per 173 F.3d 820, 824 (11th Cir. 1999); C e Ala. Hosp Ass'n v Beasley, 702 £2d 955, 962 (1 I th Cir. 1983) (in light of statutory violation,

opriate equitable remedy"). Furthermore, it has long been an "indisputable rule, that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 1 Cranch 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). For that reason, "[w]here legal rights ha