Epstein Secrets

e No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., F E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 22 EFTA00205623

Esq., F E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 22

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

Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 37

tes, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 37 EFTA00205660

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

about how the government should handle every aspect of this matter, both in civil and potential criminal proceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invitation remains open. The government's efforts to speak with victims are ongoing, and it will seek le

roceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invita

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

ehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 (801) 585-5202 Fax: (801) 585-6833 E-mai . eas

524-2822 E-mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University o

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

/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 36 EFTA00795206 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Docum

issing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University o

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

, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake Cit Utah 84112 Fax: Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2

Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Fax: E-mail: Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University o

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

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

about how the government should handle every aspect of this matter, both in civil and potential criminal proceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invitation remains open. The government's efforts to speak with victims are ongoing, and it will seek le

roceedings." Letter from Byung J. Pak to Paul G. Cassell (May 7, 2019), attached as Exhibit 1. This invita

Edwards Edwards Pottinger LP 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone : (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah* 383 S. University St. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone: (801) 585-5202 E-

: (800) 400-1098 E-Mail: [email protected] Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the

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

Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is p

TATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S REPLY TO INTERVENOR EPSTEIN'S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED REMEDIES Bradley J. Edwards Edwards Pottin er LP Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice This daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only and is not intended to imply institutio

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