EFTA01098083.pdf

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2012 Page 1 of 4 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' PROTECTIVE MOTION FOR REMEDIES The United States, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby responds to the Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies. In their Protective Motion for Remedies, Petitioners "ask[] the Court to award all the[] remedies that they outline in their responses to the [government's] motion to dismiss." DE 128 at 1-2. Petitioners further contend that "[t]he Court should award all of these remedies to the victims for the reasons explained in their pleadings and because these remedies address the Government's violation of their rights." Id. at 2. As a threshold matter, Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies should be denied because no such motion is cognizable under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, or under any rules of Court, and because the motion fails to "incorporate a memorandum of law citing supporting authorities," as required by Rule 7.1(a)(1) of the Local Rules. S.D. Fla. L.R. 7.1(a)(1). Indeed, although Petitioners refer to their "response to the Government's motion to dismiss and sealed response to the Government's motion to dismiss," DE 128 at 1, neither of those filings contains citation to authority that even purports to furnish specific support for any EFTA01098083 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2012 Page 2 of 4 of the myriad of remedies listed in those documents, except for the requested remedy that the Court cancel or rescind a non-prosecution agreement. In any event, the United States denies that Petitioners are entitled to any of the remedies that they identify in either their response to the government's motion to dismiss or their sealed supplemental response to the motion to dismiss. For reasons that include those set forth in the United States' Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Sealed Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss for Lack ofSubject Matter Jurisdiction, both of which the United States hereby incorporates into this response, the remedies identified by Petitioners are unavailable to them in these proceedings pursuant to the CVRA. WHEREFORE the United States respectfully requests that this Court enter an order denying the Petitioners' Protective Motionfor Remedies. 2 EFTA01098084 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2012 Page 3 of 4 Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/ Eduardo 1. Sanchez Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0936693 99 E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: Ema Eduardo I. Sanchez Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 877875 99 E. 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Tel: Ema A. Marie Villafafla Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 S. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for Respondent CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing United States' Response to Petitioners' Protective Motion for Remedies was filed with the Clerk of the Court and served on counsel on the attached list using CM/ECF. d Eduardo 1. Sanchez Assistant United States Attorney 3 EFTA01098085 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 144 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2012 Page 4 of 4 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 Brad Edwards, Esq., Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, ■. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, Utah 84112 Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2 ■ 4 EFTA01098086