DOJ-OGR-00000317.jpg

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/03/2019 Page 13 of 20

been curtailed by the Non-Prosecution Agreement – to discuss the possibility of pursuing federal
criminal charges against Epstein.13 Nothing precludes Petitioners from doing so, and there is
nothing to indicate that Petitioners’ wishes to confer with government attorneys in those districts
would be rebuffed in any way. Indeed, it would be rank speculation by Petitioners to contend
otherwise.

Here, Petitioners have acknowledged that the best relief they can hope to obtain through
these proceedings is the ability to confer with the attorneys for the government. See, e.g., July
11, 2008 Hr’g Tr. at 7 (agreeing that “the best [Petitioners] can get” is the “right to confer”).
Yet, under the circumstances, a claim that Petitioners have been denied the opportunity to confer
with the attorney for the government about the filing and disposition of criminal charges against
Epstein is premature and constitutionally unripe. “This is plainly the type of hypothetical case
that [a court] should avoid deciding.” Association for Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc.
v. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1166 (11th Cir. 1990). Any speculation by Petitioners that they might
prospectively be denied the opportunity to confer with the government about still-legally-viable
federal charges against Epstein simply cannot ripen Petitioners’ claims. See id. (recognizing that
courts “do not generally decide cases based on a party’s predicted conduct”).

For these reasons, Petitioners’ claims in these proceedings should be dismissed for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011)
(holding that claims that are “based on events that may take place in the future” are to be
“dismissed for lack of jurisdiction”) (citing Greenbriar, Ltd. v. City of Alabaster, 881 F.2d 1570,
1574 n.7 (11th Cir. 1989) (“[R]ipeness goes to whether the district court had subject matter

__________________
13 Petitioners could also approach the United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle
District of Florida, but, due to that office’s recusal-based derivative prosecutorial responsibilities
in the Southern District of Florida, see supra note 8, the Non-Prosecution Agreement would
constrain the possible filing of federal charges by that office in the Southern District of Florida.

12

DOJ-OGR-00000317