Epstein Secrets

isite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrowl First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Blinco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AWA-BC, 25 So.

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

isite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrowl First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Blinco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AWA-BC, 25 So.

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

TED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA • Government's Response to Petitioners' Submiss

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

ite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrow v. First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So.

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

ite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrow v. First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So.

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

ite to rescission is placing the other party in status quo"); Renfrow v. First Mortg. America, Inc., 2011 WL 2416247, *3 (S.D. Fla. June 13, 2011) (Marra, J.) ("restoring the parties to the status quo ante is an element of a rescission claim"); see also, e.g., Banco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So.

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

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED

g enforcement of their rights in appellate courts had to shoulder the heavy burden traditionally associated with the "mandamus" relief. See U.S. v. Monzel, 641 F.3d 58, 532-33 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (discussing 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3) and holding crime victims had to satisfy high mandamus standards); United S