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

equitable remedy."). And the CVRA is obviously "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its remedial purposes. Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008). A good illustration of the broad power of district courts to remedy CVRA violations comes from the Fifth Circu

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 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT'S SEALED MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF SUBJECT

te equitable remedy."). And the CVRA is obviously "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its remedial purposes. Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008). A good illustration of the broad power of district courts to remedy CVRA violations comes from the Fifth Circu

Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05;02.2011 Page 1 of 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATI

e the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For 4 Interestingly

Document 77 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/02/2011 Page 1 of 29 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 REPLY TO GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATI

the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For Interestingly,