Epstein Secrets

roduce admissible evidence to support the fact." Rodriguez v. City of Miami, Fla„ 907 F. Supp. 2d 1327, 1330

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

write a statute as it pleases." It • Jennings v. Rodriguez, 538 U.S. -, 138 S. Ct. 830, 843-44, 200 L.Ed.2

on, like the change of position by the Justice Department's local U.S. Attorney's Office, came only after Epstein's victims filed this lawsuit. See Mohasco Corp. v. Silver, 447 U.S. 807, 825, 100 S. Ct. 2486, 2497, 65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (holding that an agency's "interpretation' of a statute cannot supersede

1) 28 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 2701 6 Jennings v. Rodriguez. 538 U.S. -. -. 138 S. Ct. 830. 843-44, 200 L.E

eading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 170 (2012) ("A word or phrase is presumed to bear the same meaning throughout a text ...."); cf. also Mohasco Corp. v. Silver. 447 U.S. 807, 826, 100 S.Ct. 2486.65 L.Ed.2d 532 (1980) (rejecting interpretation that would "giv[e] the word 'filed' two different mean