DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
752 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
6
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
8
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
752 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against the Petitioners' request to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL. It contends that the Petitioners' claims are not ripe for adjudication, citing legal precedent, and asserts that contrary to their claims, they were consulted by the government. Specifically, it states that Assistant U.S. Attorney Villafaña spoke with Petitioners about Epstein's offenses against them prior to the agreement being signed.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Conger |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1...
|
|
| Jacks |
Mentioned in the case citation 'In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011)'.
|
|
| Pittman |
Mentioned in the case citation 'Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280'.
|
|
| Epstein |
Subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement with the USAO-SDFL and potential federal criminal charges.
|
|
| Villafaña | Assistant United States Attorney |
An attorney from the USAO-SDFL who had spoken to Petitioners about offenses committed by Epstein.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. | organization |
Party in the case citation 'Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger'.
|
| Atlanta Gas Light Co. | company |
Party in the case citation 'Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC'.
|
| FERC | government agency |
Party in the case citation 'Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC'.
|
| United States | government |
Party in the case citation 'Texas v. United States'.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreem...
|
| Government | government |
Refers to the U.S. government, specifically the attorneys with whom Petitioners wish to confer.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2008-07-11
A court hearing where it was acknowledged that prosecutors had spoken to Petitioners about what happened to them. The transcript is cited as 'July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr.'
prosecutors
Petitioners
Relationships (3)
The document describes 'offenses committed against them by Epstein,' indicating a perpetrator-victim relationship.
The document details communications and legal proceedings involving the Petitioners (as victims) and the USAO-SDFL (as the prosecuting authority).
Key Quotes (8)
"[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on speculative possibilities,"Source
— In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011)
(Quoted to explain the legal doctrine of ripeness.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #1
"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,"Source
— Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523U.S. 296, 300 (1998))
(Quoted to further define when a legal claim is not ripe for adjudication.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #2
"[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily reaching constitutional issues."Source
— Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280
(Quoted to explain the purpose of the ripeness doctrine.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #3
"confer with the attorney for the Government"Source
— Petitioners
(Describing the action the Petitioners seek to take regarding potential federal charges against Epstein.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #4
"[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid"Source
— Petitioners
(Describing the relief sought by Petitioners in a July 11, 2008 hearing.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #5
"denied her rights"Source
— Petitioner
(A claim made by a Petitioner that her rights under the CVRA were violated.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #6
"received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges"Source
— Petitioner
(The specific reason cited for the claim that her rights were denied under the CVRA.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #7
"about what happened"Source
— prosecutors
(Acknowledged in a hearing transcript as the topic of discussion between prosecutors and Petitioners.)
DOJ-OGR-00000312.jpg
Quote #8
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,188 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80136-KAM-00498-RMB Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/11/2018 Page 8 of 20
see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d
1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, “[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on
speculative possibilities,” In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim
“‘rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur
at all,’” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v.
United States, 523U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, “[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent
federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily
reaching constitutional issues.” Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280.
In these proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution
Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can “confer with the
attorney for the Government” about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against
Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr. at 6-7
(seeking an “[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid” so that
Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 2 ¶ 5 (claiming that Petitioner was “denied her rights” under the
CVRA because she “received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the
possible disposition of the charges”).
Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to
confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of
Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña
from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by
Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr.
at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners “about what happened” to them); DE
1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, “[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on
speculative possibilities,” In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim
“‘rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur
at all,’” Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v.
United States, 523U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, “[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent
federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily
reaching constitutional issues.” Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280.
In these proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution
Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can “confer with the
attorney for the Government” about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against
Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr. at 6-7
(seeking an “[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid” so that
Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C.
§ 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 2 ¶ 5 (claiming that Petitioner was “denied her rights” under the
CVRA because she “received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the
possible disposition of the charges”).
Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to
confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of
Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña
from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by
Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr.
at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners “about what happened” to them); DE
7
DOJ-OGR-00000312
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document