Epstein Secrets

estion that Congress intended, but simply forgot, to provide additional remedies beyond those already specified. Courts agree. See United States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (holding that the CVRA's "carefully crafted and detailed enforcement scheme," provides "strong evidence that Co

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

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 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 S

. 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

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 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 S