Epstein Secrets

itable 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 have been inv

on, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486, 2497, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (holding that an agency's "interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede

90, 99 S.Ct. 1946. And "it is a general and indisputable rule[ ] that where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy." I I Marbuty v. Madison, 5 U.S. (I Cranch) 137, 163, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803) (quoting 3 William Blackstone, Commentaries *23). I agree with the Majority, however, that the prese

eading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text ...."); cf. also Mohasco Corp. v. Silver. 447 U.S. 807, 826, 100 S.Ct. 2486.65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (rejecting interpretation that would "giv[e] the word 'filed' two different mean

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

olely, to decide on the rights of individuals.'" Hein v. Freedom from Religion Found., Inc., 551 U.S. 587, 598 (2007) (Alito, J.) (citing Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 170, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803)). Epstein does not have a "right" to separation of powers. Second, as discussed above in connection with the