Epstein Secrets

(4(0, (20P) Phsne ( ) Address Scarce Business Address (Name. Street) (City) : Stat0i (DO) Phone ( ) OCcumbon OA. Number. State Sec Sec Hunter ttuS Number Nem of Dinh (Otte Stele) u: 8 g Co-Defendant Name (Lest flit 04.000 Race Sex Date ol Eton (JlyCeuenehip 8 ;. Z`"" 1[41,d.. re

JPL/slm Decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit handed down prior to September 30, 1981, are binding as precedent in the Eleventh Circuit. Den Donner v. City of Prichard. Ala. 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (11th Cir. 1981). K&E 194397482 EFTA00230792 Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scan A. KO

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

intentions, partial rescission would pose a significant risk of harm to certain victims, which must be considered in crafting an equitable remedy. The Eleventh Circuit has admonished courts considering equitable remedies to "bear in mind that a poorly crafted remedy may achieve justice for one by working a substan

. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 (1979). Epstein raises no suggestions that he has been denied that opportunity here. Epstein does point to the fact that the Eleventh Circuit has previously ruled in this case that he is not "an ordinary litigant." Jane Doe 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 2014). But that

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

. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 332 (1979). Epstein raises no suggestions that he has been denied that opportunity here. Epstein does point to the fact that the Eleventh Circuit has previously ruled in this case that he is not "an ordinary litigant." Jane Doe 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999, 1005 (11th Cir. 2014). But that

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