Epstein Secrets

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

heme," provides "strong evidence that Congress did not intend to authorize other remedies that it simply forgot to incorporate expressly") (quoting Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 508 U.S. 248, 254 (1993)); United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) 10 EFTA00085718 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 462 En

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.

pressly." 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. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

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.

pressly." 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. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

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., Blinco, 400 F.3d at 1312; AVVA-BC, 25 So.

pressly." United States States v. Menzel, 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. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the

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.

pressly." 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. 248, 254 (1993)); see United States v. Hunter, 548 F.3d 1308, 1315 (10th Cir. 2008) (declining to "to read additional remedies" into the