Epstein Secrets

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

ly if they lost their CVRA case. Judicial estoppel applies when an inconsistent position is "calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1344 (11th Cir. 2006). But it "is difficult to impute an intent `to make a mockery of the judicial sy

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). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

e complaining party was aware of the inconsistency in sufficient time and in a position to properly raise an objection in the original proceeding." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, Epstein and the Government was well aware of both this CVRA action and th

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). Given that the USAO-SDFL had told the victims that the CVRA applied, it was obligated to confer with them and

e complaining party was aware of the inconsistency in sufficient time and in a position to properly raise an objection in the original proceeding." Ajaka v. Brooksamerica Mortg. Corp., 453 F.3d 1339, 1345 (11th Cir. 2006). Here, Epstein and the Government was well aware of both this CVRA action and th