DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
792 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court order (page from a memorandum or response)
File Size:
792 KB
Summary
This document is page 6 of a legal filing (Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM) entered on July 9, 2019. The government argues that the Petitioners (victims) lack standing to void Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) because the government is contractually bound to it, and a favorable ruling would not redress their injury. However, the document notably admits that a federal investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein remains a 'legally viable possibility' regardless of the NPA's status.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein | Defendant / Subject of Investigation |
Subject of the Non-Prosecution Agreement and potential future federal prosecution.
|
| Petitioners | Plaintiffs / Victims |
Individuals seeking to void the Non-Prosecution Agreement and claiming CVRA violations.
|
| Government Attorney | Prosecutor / Official |
Person handling the case with whom Petitioners can confer.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
Must legally abide by the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
|
|
| Court |
The entity being asked to rule on the CVRA violations and standing.
|
|
| 9th Cir. |
Cited in case law (Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway).
|
|
| 11th Cir. |
Cited in case law (Scott v. Taylor).
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
Timeline (2 events)
2019-07-09
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Florida Southern District (indicated in the header stamp).
|
Relationships (3)
Petitioners seeking to void Epstein's non-prosecution agreement; crimes committed against Petitioners.
United States must legally abide by the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Dispute over CVRA violations and standing regarding the NPA.
Key Quotes (4)
"the United States must legally abide by the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement even if this Court should somehow set the agreement aside"Source
DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
Quote #1
"potential federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the Petitioners and others remains a legally viable possibility."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
Quote #2
"Petitioners simply have no injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable ruling in these proceedings."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
Quote #3
"Significantly, it is Epstein’s contractual rights under the non-prosecution agreement that Petitioners seek to void through these proceedings."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000310.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,350 characters)
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2019 Page 6 of 20
contract."); Lomayaktewa v. Hathaway, 520 F.2d 1324, 1325 (9th Cir. 1975) (“No procedural
principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law than that, in an action to set aside a lease
or a contract, all parties who may be affected by the determination of the action are
indispensable.”); see also National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 362 (1940) (“It is
elementary that it is not within the power of any tribunal to make a binding adjudication of the
rights in personam of parties not brought before it by due process of law.”).5
principle is more deeply imbedded in the common law than that, in an action to set aside a lease
or a contract, all parties who may be affected by the determination of the action are
indispensable.”); see also National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 362 (1940) (“It is
elementary that it is not within the power of any tribunal to make a binding adjudication of the
rights in personam of parties not brought before it by due process of law.”).5
Additionally, a “favorable ruling” from this Court will not provide Petitioners with
anything for the alleged CVRA violations that is not already available to them. For the due
process reasons already discussed above, the United States must legally abide by the terms of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement even if this Court should somehow set the agreement aside for
Petitioners to consult further with the government attorney handling the case. Moreover, as will
be explained in greater detail below, see infra at 8-12, Petitioners already have the present ability
to confer with an attorney for the government about a federal criminal case against Epstein –
whether or not the Non-Prosecution Agreement is set aside – because the investigation and
potential federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the Petitioners and others
remains a legally viable possibility.6
anything for the alleged CVRA violations that is not already available to them. For the due
process reasons already discussed above, the United States must legally abide by the terms of the
Non-Prosecution Agreement even if this Court should somehow set the agreement aside for
Petitioners to consult further with the government attorney handling the case. Moreover, as will
be explained in greater detail below, see infra at 8-12, Petitioners already have the present ability
to confer with an attorney for the government about a federal criminal case against Epstein –
whether or not the Non-Prosecution Agreement is set aside – because the investigation and
potential federal prosecution of Epstein for crimes committed against the Petitioners and others
remains a legally viable possibility.6
The present proceedings under the CVRA must accordingly be dismissed for lack of
standing because Petitioners simply have no injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
ruling in these proceedings. See, e.g., Scott v. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006)
(holding that there was no standing where it was speculative that remedy that Plaintiff sought
standing because Petitioners simply have no injury that is likely to be redressed by a favorable
ruling in these proceedings. See, e.g., Scott v. Taylor, 470 F.3d 1014, 1018 (11th Cir. 2006)
(holding that there was no standing where it was speculative that remedy that Plaintiff sought
5 Significantly, it is Epstein’s contractual rights under the non-prosecution agreement that
Petitioners seek to void through these proceedings.
6 Petitioners’ present, as well as past, ability to confer with an attorney for the government
also demonstrates that Petitioners fail to satisfy the first two prongs of the standing test:
Petitioners have simply not suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
government conduct.
Petitioners seek to void through these proceedings.
6 Petitioners’ present, as well as past, ability to confer with an attorney for the government
also demonstrates that Petitioners fail to satisfy the first two prongs of the standing test:
Petitioners have simply not suffered a concrete injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged
government conduct.
5
DOJ-OGR-00000310
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document