Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01098362DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 88

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01098362
Pages
3
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)09.2011 Page 1 of 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' NOTICE OF NEWLY-AVAILABLE SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY Respondent, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response to Petitioners' Notice of Newly-Available Supplemental Authority, and states: On June 17, 2011, petitioners filed their Notice of Newly-Available Supplemental Authority in Support of Their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crimes Victims Rights Act (DE 85). The supplemental authority is the June 6, 2011 letter of Senator Jon Kyl to the Attorney General of the United States, regarding the issuance of an opinion by the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel, in which the OW expressed its interpretation of when rights under the CVRA applied. Senator Kyl disagreed with the interpretation of the CVRA in the OLC opinion. Petitioners ask the Court to consider Senator Kyl's June 6, 2011 in determining whether rights under the CVRA attached in the absence of a formal charge being filed. Senator Kyl's letter cannot be considered by this Court as legislative history because it was written in 2011, seven years after the enactment of the CVRA, Pub. L. 108-405, 118 Stat. 2261 (Oct. 30, 2004). In Bruesewitz v. Wveth, LLC, 131 S.Ct. 1068 (2011), the Supreme EFTA01098362 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)09.2011 Page 2 of 3 Court observed: Post-enactment legislative history (a contradiction in terms) is not a legitimate tool of statutory interpretation. See Jones v. United States, 526 U.S. 227, 238, 119 S.Ct. 1215, 143 L.Ed.2d 311 (1999); United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 281-282, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed. 884 (1947). Real (pit-enactment) legislative history is persuasive to some because it is thought to shed light on what legislators understood an ambiguous statutory text to mean when they voted to enact it into law. See Exxon Mobil Cap. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 568, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). But post-enactment legislative history by definition "could have had no effect on the congressional vote," District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 605, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008). In Clark v. Securities Industry Ass'n 479 U.S. 388, 407 (1987), the Supreme Court refused to give substantial weight to a statement made by the sponsor of a law placed into the Congressional Record ten days after the law was passed. See also Auburn Housing Authority v. Martinez, 277 F.3d 138, 149 n.5 (2nd Cir. 2002)("However, precedent constrains us from giving weight to such post-enactment statements"(citations omitted)). Senator Kyl's letter is entitled to no weight in this Court's interpretation of the CVRA. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney Fla. Bar No. 0936693 99 N.E. 4ih Street Miami, Florida 33132 (305) 961-9320 Fax: (305) 530-7139 E-mail: dexter.lee®usdoj.gov 2 EFTA01098363 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 88 Entered on FLSD Docket 07)09:2011 Page 3 of 3 Attorney for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that on July 9, 2011, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court using CM/ECF. s/ Dexter A. Lee DEXTER A. LEE Assistant U.S. Attorney SERVICE LIST Jane Does 1 and 2 v. United States, Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON United States District Court, Southern District of Florida Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 (954) 524-2820 Fax: (954) 524-2822 E-mail: bradApathtojustice.com 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-mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 3 EFTA01098364

Technical Artifacts (13)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Case #9:08-CV-80736-KAM
Domainbradapathtojustice.com
Domainusdoj.gov
FaxFax: (305) 530-7139
FaxFax: (801) 585-6833
FaxFax: (954) 524-2822
Phone(305) 530-7139
Phone(305) 961-9320
Phone(801) 585-5202
Phone(801) 585-6833
Phone(954) 524-2820
Phone(954) 524-2822

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 414 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/11/2017 Page 1 of 11

12p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01297668

18p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown

EFTA01407663

51p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01408777

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 58

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 04707/2011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOES #1 AND #2'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS IDE491 The United States, by and through the undersigned, hereby opposes Petitioners' Motion to have their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" accepted as true [DE49]. Petitioners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reaching agreement on the Statement; (2) the "Undisputed Material Facts" are irre

15p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.