3
Shared Docs
1
Same-Page
3 / 5
Mentions
:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 127 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/05/2011 Page 6 of 25 historically had broad authority to fashion equitable remedies . . . ." Hardison. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). The Eleventh Circuit has expressly required district courts to fashion appropriate equitable remedies
orney's Office for violating Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's rights; • A monetary sanction imposed against the U.S. Attorney's Office, to be paid to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 directly or to any other appropriate person or entity;; • An order establishing the precise rule regarding the timing of the obli
TES 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 INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite
Page: EFTA00021442 →ial scheme for enforcement of congressionally created rights, the courts must give "appropriate judicial deference toward the will of Congress ...."Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Congress is "in a better position to decide whether or not the public i
Page: EFTA00021491 →of all relevant circumstances, it is important to understand the very limited reference the victims made to Epstein's NPA in their civil lawsuits. Jane Doe I and 2 filed their civil lawsuits in about September 2008, only after their CVRA petition had been filed — and had succeeded in forcing the USAO- SDF
Page: EFTA00021493 →TES 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 INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice T
Page: EFTA00022546 →also extends to "Other Potential Defendants," defined as any "other person or entity would could have been included as a potential defendant" in the Jane Does lawsuit alleging sex abuse. Obviously, the United States was a not sex abuser and could not have been included in the lawsuit against Epstein. 42
Page: EFTA00022591 →ial scheme for enforcement of congressionally created rights, the courts must give "appropriate judicial deference toward the will of Congress ...."Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2004) (internal quotation omitted). Congress is "in a better position to decide whether or not the public i
Page: EFTA00022595 →Entities connected to both Hardison and Jane Doe

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON
Bradley Edwards
PERSON
Kenneth Marra
PERSON
Paul Cassell
PERSON
United States
LOCATION
Alexander Acosta
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION
the University of Utah
ORGANIZATION
Jeffrey Sloman
PERSON
Marc Rich
PERSONthe Eleventh Circuit
ORGANIZATION
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION
Michael Cohen
PERSONGarcia
PERSONDistrict Court for the Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATIONU.S. Attorney's Office
ORGANIZATIONWalker
PERSONSouthern District of Florida
LOCATION
Kenna
PERSONJacqueline Perczek
PERSON