Epstein Secrets

obligations to notify the victims. In any event, an agency's own "'interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede the language chosen by Congress." Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825 (1980). Next, the Court rejects the Government's contention that Jane Doe 2 is not protected by 31 EFTA00794152 Cas

l. ¶ 5, DE 361-26.) Jane Doe 1's understanding was that the federal investigation would continue. (Jane Doe 1 Decl. 16.) In contrast, Special Agent Kuyrkendall stated that the meeting with Jane Doe 1 was to advise her of the main terms of the NPA.2 (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 8, DE 403-18.) After the meeting, Speci

he provision about monetary damages could be grounds for impeachment of the victims and herself. (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 9.) According to Special Agent Kuyrkendall, the investigation of Epstein continued through 2008. (Kuykendall Decl. ¶ 11.) In addition to Jane Doe I, FBI agents only talked to two other victim

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

d issues of fact on some aspects of this important meeting, it is interesting to see the limitations in the declaration. Here is what Special Agent Kuyrkendall states: In October 2007, my co-case agent and I met with Jane Doe #1 at a Publix grocery store in Palm Beach Gardens. We were meeting with Jane Doe

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

1232 language that demeans the harm they may have suffered." • "[W]e will not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafana or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns. Again, federal law requires that victims have a 'reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in th

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

tim Notification Letter. She stated that the U.S. Attorney's Office would "not remove the language about contacting AUSA Villafafia or Special Agent Kuyrkendall with questions or concerns." Again, AUSA Villafafia wrote that "federal law requires that victims have the `reasonable right to confer with the att