Epstein Secrets

)(4)." United States v. Okun, 2009 WL 790042 at *2 (E.D.Va. 2009). Still another decision at odds with the Government's position is United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008). This decision is instructive because it not only explains that victims have rights before the formal filing of ch

411 (E.D.N.Y. 2008)— specifically contradicts the Government's position that victims are not entitled to obtain information from the Government. In Rubin, crime victims argued that "the government has not provided information with which to pursue restitution in this ease." Id. at 425. The district co

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

n Dean has been cited in one very recent District Court decision, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WI. 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under the CVRA. After citing Dean, the District Court agreed that

ld apply. 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

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (E.D.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00079021 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 48 Entered

ld apply. 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, "[l]t' the right is created by a federal statute, the federal courts hav

has been cited favorably in two recent District Court decisions, which provides further support for Petitioner's position here. In United States v. Rubin, 2008 WL 2358591 (BD.N.Y. 2008), the victims argued for extremely broad rights under 29 EFTA00229945 , , , , , , , • Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM D

ould apply. 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