Epstein Secrets

he most recent court decision to carefully review the Justice Department's position is Jane Does #1 and #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV- MARRA/JOHNSON (S.D. Fla. Sept. 26, 2011). In that case, the court flatly rejected the Department's claim that rights attach only after charges are formally filed

was relieved of its CVRA obligations. Of course, an agency's own "'interpretation' of the statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Whatever the Attorney General may have said in his Guideline, the ultimate issue in this case remains what the

interpret subsection (a)(8)'s general right to fair treatment by reference to the subsections (and their constituent rights) that precede it. See, Johnson it United States,559 U.S. 133, 139,130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines meaning ...."); Pi Gutierrez v. Ada, 528

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

e in the overall statutory scheme." (quoting ! I Davis v. Mich. Dep't of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809, 109 S.Ct. 1500, 103 L.Ed.2d 891 (1989))); P ° Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d I (2010) ("Ultimately, context determines *1297 meaning."). Specifically, subsect

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