Epstein Secrets

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

equitable remedy."). And the CVRA is obviously "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its remedial purposes. Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008). A good illustration of the broad power of district courts to remedy CVRA violations comes from the Fifth Circu

es not cite the applicable civil rule is that it has yet to state clearly whether it is willing to abide by the civil rules in this case. See, e.g., Gov't Resp. Mot. Order Not Withhold Evid., DE #59 at 6-7 (refusing to take a position on whether civil rules apply or not). Indeed, the Government has yet to

te equitable remedy."). And the CVRA is obviously "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its remedial purposes. Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008). A good illustration of the broad power of district courts to remedy CVRA violations comes from the Fifth Circu

gainst Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(1) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

e the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For 4 Interestingly

against Jeffrey Epstein in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, . . [the victims] cannot invoke any protections under the CVRA." Gov't Resp. at 8. This sweeping position is simply irreconcilable with § 3771(c)(I) of the CVRA. If an indictment is a prerequisite to CVRA rights, then depar

the more expansive interpretation. Not only is the CVRA "remedial legislation" that should be broadly construed to achieve its purposes, Edwards v. Kia Motors of America, Inc., 554 F.3d 943, 948 (11th Cir 2008), but the sponsors of the CVRA stated that the right to confer was "intended to be expansive. For Interestingly,