Epstein Secrets

Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 1 of 25 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 6 of 25 historically had broad authority to fashion equitable remedies . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). The Eleventh Circuit has expressly required district courts to fashion appropriate equitable remedies when p

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

scheme for enforcement of congressionally-created rights, the courts must give "appropriate judicial deference toward the will of Congress . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Congress is "in a better position to decide whether or not the public interest

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

tions. Federal courts have had broad authority to fashion 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