Supreme Court rejects victim Jeffrey Epstein’s petition for lover’s confession agreement

Jeffrey Epstein stands in front of his Gulfstream

The government has used this photo of Jeffrey Epstein standing in front of the Gulfstream plane as evidence in the former pilot’s testimony during the trial of Ghislaine Maxwell.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday overturned previous lower court rulings that dismissed a lawsuit by a woman who claims she was sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein when she was a minor.

Courtney Wild for nearly a decade, sued various federal defendants over a lover agreement the federal government extended to a now-dead pedophile in 2007. Authorities say Epstein committed suicide in his home prison in New York City in 2019.

That 2007 plea agreement, drawn up by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida, contained a non-prosecution agreement against any and all alleged and signed accomplices. concluded without any input from the countless young victims of the deceased financier.

At the same time, victims are repeatedly told by U.S. government lawyers that prosecutors are obligated to talk to them if and when an agreement has been reached. The victims trusted those assurances; of course their faith was misplaced.

As a result of the bargain, Epstein spent 13 months in prison but was allowed to go most days, to and from his office to work. He was also allowed to meet and entertain female visitors – including at least one minor who was allowed to visit him 90 times.

The lack of a victim involved in the settlement allowed Epstein to plead guilty to the relatively minor state charges of soliciting a person under the age of 18 and soliciting in exchange for a federal case that was never filed. by Alexander Acosta’s the office was cited by Wild as infringing Crime Victims’ Rights Act 2004 (CVRA).

In April 2020, a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeal disagreed with her while expressing some concern for her plight.

“Despite our sympathy for Miss Wild and others like her, who have endured indescribable horror at the hands of Epstein, left only in the dark — and, therefore, there having apparently been misled by government attorneys, we find ourselves restricted to denying her petition,” Donald Trump– Appointed Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom Written. “We assume that at least on matters that currently exist — at least as the CVRA is currently being written — rights under the Act are not attached until criminal proceedings have been commenced against them. against the defendant, by complaint, information or indictment. ”

In April 2021The 11 Circuit has decided to re-determine the case – once again siding with the government and telling Epstein’s victims that their problems and rights are not issues to which the US legal system is obligated. must be dealt with – at least not within the scope of CVRA.

And, again, Newsom expressed concern for Wild and other women in her position but stressed that the law prevented the court from voiding the terms of that controversial plea agreement. .

“We have our deepest sympathies with Miss Wild and others like her, who have suffered indescribable horror at the hands of Epstein, only to be left in the dark – and, there, it appears to have been clearly deceived – by government lawyers,” the majority opinion read. “Despite this, we find ourselves forced to refuse Ms Wild’s petition for crime victims like Ms Wild to ‘mov[e]’for relief in the context of a pre-existing procedure – and generally, to pursue administrative remedies – it does not allow a victim to ask a judicial authority to enforce her CVRA rights in a free civil action. Because the government never filed charges against Epstein, there is no pre-existing procedure by which Ms. Wild could be relieved under the CVRA, and the Act does not sanction her independent case. “

However, the dissident explains the procedural shambles that led to Wild’s independent civil lawsuit filing – and notes that it was Epstein’s lawyers who sought to fight CVRA’s involvement .

“Epstein’s attorneys objected to any victim notification, but the U.S. Attorney’s Office firmly and repeatedly told Epstein’s attorneys that the CVRA has a statutory obligation to notify and communicate with victims about the Settlement and upcoming events, including Epstein’s state plea,” Circuit Judge Elizabeth L. Branch wrote in a dissent. “However, for reasons still unknown, the United States Attorney’s Office accepted the request of Epstein’s attorneys and failed to notify all of the Agreement’s victims. Rather, the United States Attorney’s Office claims to have lied to victims for months regarding the Agreement and the settlement of the federal lawsuit. ”

In August 2021Wild appealed to nine judges of the nation’s highest court.

“CVRA promises crime victims in federal cases a power conferred on prosecutors,” her petition to the Supreme Court said. “In this case, however, one of the most notorious child sex traffickers in the country’s history – Jeffrey Epstein, a man of wealth, power and political influence – was able to negotiate a deal. confidentiality agreements with federal prosecutors. The tragic result is that the brave child victims who come to report their sexual abuse, as the en banc ruling (11th U.S. Court of Appeals) below admits, ‘are left in the shadow – and, therefore, apparently mislead – by government attorneys “about why Epstein was not subject to federal prosecution for his horrific crimes.”

Biden administration, for a short timeargued that the courts should not entertain Wild’s “tragic” case — in part because they argue that the federal government has learned a number of lessons over the past decade.

“The Department engaged closely with victims in both the 2019 Epstein prosecution in New York and the recent successful prosecution of Ghislaine Maxwell,” Attorney General filings Elizabeth Prelogari Discuss. “And the Department has recently embarked on a review of its guidance to prosecutors regarding victim and witness support.”

In two brief lines, the nation’s supreme court allowed the third party involved to make arguments in the case and dismissed the case to a hearing.

“Child USA leave request to briefly state as amicus curiae granted,” the high court wrote in order list February 22, 2022. “The petition for an order of the certiorari is denied.”

In other words, a third-party file is filed – but the high court does not hear the case.

[image via U.S. Department of Justice]

Is there a trick we should know? [email protected] Supreme Court rejects victim Jeffrey Epstein’s petition for lover’s confession agreement

James Brien

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button