Epstein Secrets

ucidate the interface between the Government and the victims. DE 280 at 8-10. In a later pleading (responding to arguments from putative intervenor Alan Dershowitz), the new victims also advanced eight specific reasons why their allegations related specifically to current issues in the case, including issues o

nding to arguments from putative intervenor Alan Dershowitz), the new victims also advanced eight specific r

responding to arguments from putative intervenor Alan Dershowitz), the new victims also advanced eight

hile a claimant is "beyond the seas," as in 28 U.S.C. 2401(a), a court lacks the power to narrow the scope of the plain meaning of that phrase. See CBS Inc. I PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1228 (11th Cir. 2001) (cautioning against allowing "clearly expressed legislative decisions... [to] be

. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3); see also 16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and

v. Beck's Est., 129 F.2d 243, 245 (2d Cir. 1942))). Where, as here, the language Congress used is clear and unambiguous, our inquiry is complete. CBS Inc. it PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture, 245 F.3d 1217, 1222 (11th Cir. 2001). We are bound to "presume that Congress said what it meant and meant what it s

day of 2010. Robert C. Josefsberg, Esq. Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Katherine W. Ezell, Es Atterbu

ture said what it means and means what it said, and not add language or give some absurd or strained interpretation. As stated in 2 EFTA00233491 CBS Inc. supra at 1228 — "Those who ask courts to give effect to perceived legislative intent by interpreting statutory language contrary to its plain and un