Epstein Secrets

des strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States" Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens I. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate."') (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Moreover, the additional civil remedies that Petitioners seek to engraft onto the CVRA are simply not recognized remedies within

des strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States" Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens I. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate."') (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Moreover, the additional civil remedies that Petitioners seek to engraft onto the CVRA are not recognized remedies within the cr

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

a of contrary congressional intent, . . . compelled to conclude that Congress provided precisely the remedies it considered appropriate.") (quoting Karahalios, 489 U.S. at 533). Because Petitioners seek remedies not authorized by the CVRA's plain language, their requests should be denied. What's more, th

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

s strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly." United States States v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 528, 542 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, No. 11-85, S. Ct. 2011 WL 3055311 (Nov. 28, 2011) (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 24

48 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an `elemental canon' of statutory construction that where a statute expr

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

SD Docket 06/24/2019 Page 11 of 32 (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the CVRA beyond those expressly contained in the Act); see also Karahalios v. Nat'l Fed'n of Fed. Employees, 489 U.S. 527, 533 (1989) ("[I]t is . . . an 'elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expre