DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
585 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
585 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Weinberg | Attorney |
Answering the court's questions regarding documentation of the 2008 NPA discussions.
|
| Mr. Rossmiller | Attorney |
Answering the court's questions regarding the content of the May 2008 letter.
|
| The Court | Judge |
Presiding over the hearing, asking questions about documentation and dates.
|
| Defense Team | Legal Defense |
Attorneys representing the defendant (Epstein) during the 2008 negotiations.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Criminal Division |
Department of Justice division that met with the defense team.
|
|
| CEOS |
Child Exploitation Unit (likely referring to Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section).
|
|
| Child Exploitation Unit |
Specific unit involved in the 2008 meeting.
|
|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Court reporting firm.
|
Timeline (2 events)
July 24, 2019
Court hearing regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB.
Courtroom (Southern District of New York implied by reporter name)
March 2008
Meeting in Washington between the defense team and representatives of the criminal division and Child Exploitation Unit.
Washington
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of the meeting between the defense team and the criminal division/CEOS.
|
Relationships (1)
Meeting in Washington regarding the NPA and jurisdiction.
Key Quotes (4)
"She received submissions from the defense that this was essentially a local crime without the necessary interstate elements that constitute the foundation of federal prosecution."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
Quote #1
"They recognized that their position was not squarely within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008 meeting."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
Quote #2
"But they endorsed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart of the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
Quote #3
"It endorsed the exercise of discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA were unusual"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,673 characters)
Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 24 of 74 24
1 She received submissions from the defense that this
2 was essentially a local crime without the necessary interstate
3 elements that constitute the foundation of federal prosecution.
4 We had a meeting in Washington with a number of the
5 defense team with representatives of the criminal division and
6 the representatives of the CEOS, the Child Exploitation Unit.
7 They recognized that their position was not squarely
8 within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008
9 meeting. They recognized the arguments were novel; that some
10 of the provisions in the NPA were novels. But they endorsed
11 the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart
12 of the NPA.
13 THE COURT: Was there any proceeding at which their
14 position is documented or any correspondence?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. There are submissions
16 by the defense to the criminal division in Washington that I
17 believe were dated in March. And then there was a response in
18 May which in essence authorized --
19 THE COURT: May of what year?
20 MR. WEINBERG: May of 2008.
21 THE COURT: What did it say?
22 MR. ROSSMILLER: It endorsed the exercise of
23 discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page
24 letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA
25 were unusual; that these allegations were not within the
2 was essentially a local crime without the necessary interstate
3 elements that constitute the foundation of federal prosecution.
4 We had a meeting in Washington with a number of the
5 defense team with representatives of the criminal division and
6 the representatives of the CEOS, the Child Exploitation Unit.
7 They recognized that their position was not squarely
8 within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008
9 meeting. They recognized the arguments were novel; that some
10 of the provisions in the NPA were novels. But they endorsed
11 the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart
12 of the NPA.
13 THE COURT: Was there any proceeding at which their
14 position is documented or any correspondence?
15 MR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. There are submissions
16 by the defense to the criminal division in Washington that I
17 believe were dated in March. And then there was a response in
18 May which in essence authorized --
19 THE COURT: May of what year?
20 MR. WEINBERG: May of 2008.
21 THE COURT: What did it say?
22 MR. ROSSMILLER: It endorsed the exercise of
23 discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page
24 letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA
25 were unusual; that these allegations were not within the
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00000534
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document