Latest / The Vault: The Epstein Files / Judge Marra’s Epstein Opinion and the CVRA Wall (Part 1)

Transcript

Judge Marra’s Epstein Opinion and the CVRA Wall (Part 1) · The Vault: The Epstein Files

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: What's up, everyone, and welcome to another episode of the
• 0:02
  Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to take a
• 0:05
  look at Judge Mara's ruling when it comes to the
• 0:08
  complaint made by Jang Do one and Jane Do two
• 0:12
  about their CVR rights being disregarded. Case number zero eight
• 0:18
  DASH eight zero seven three six dash civ Dash Mara,
• 0:23
  Jang Do one and Jane Do two Petitioners First United
• 0:26
  States of America Opinion and Order. This caused before the
• 0:31
  Court upon Jane Do one and Jane Do two submissions
• 0:34
  on the proposed Remedies to the Government's response to petitioners
• 0:37
  submission on proposed Remedies Limited Intervener Jeffrey Epstein Brief in
• 0:42
  opposition to proposed remedies, Jang Do one and Jane Do
• 0:45
  Two's reply to the Government in support of their submission
• 0:49
  on proposed remedies, Jane Do one and Jane Do Two's
• 0:52
  reply to Intervener Epstein's Brief and opposition to propose remedies.
• 0:56
  Jane Do one and Jane Do two statements noting death
• 1:00
  pursuant to Rule twenty five of the Federal Rules the
• 1:02
  Civil Procedure. Response to Rule twenty five notice and suggestion
• 1:07
  of mootness. On February twenty first, twenty nineteen, the Court
• 1:12
  entered its order DEE four to thirty five, finding that
• 1:15
  the government violated the Crime Victims Rights Act cvra US
• 1:19
  Code eighteen, section thirty seven to seventy one when it
• 1:22
  failed to confer with petitioners prior to entering into a
• 1:25
  non prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. The Court permitted the
• 1:29
  parties to brief and present additional evidence relative to the
• 1:33
  issue of what remedies, if any, should be imposed by
• 1:36
  the Court. As a result, the briefing was extensive and
• 1:39
  the Court has carefully reviewed all the arguments. No additional
• 1:43
  evidence was presented by any of the parties. Furthermore, during
• 1:47
  the time the matter was under advisement, mister Epstein died,
• 1:50
  which resulted in additional briefing. The Court will simply provide
• 1:54
  an abbreviated summary of the party's arguments. Given that the
• 1:58
  briefs are available on the public Petitioners initially requested the
• 2:02
  following remedies. One rescind the provisions in the NPA between
• 2:07
  the U. S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of
• 2:09
  Florida and mister Epstein that barred his prosecution and the
• 2:13
  prosecution of his named and unnamed alleged co conspirators. Two
• 2:18
  declare that the United States Constitution would permit such a prosecution.
• 2:22
  Three enjoin the U s Attorney's Office to fourthwith make
• 2:26
  its best effort to protect the CVR A rights of
• 2:28
  Jane DO one and Jane Do two and other Epstein victims.
• 2:32
  Four enjoin the US Attorney's Office to fourthwith confer with
• 2:36
  Jane Do one and Jane do two and other Epstein
• 2:39
  victims to provide them with accurate and timely notice of
• 2:43
  future case events. And five order a meeting for the
• 2:46
  victims with members of the current US Attorney's Office and
• 2:50
  former US Attorney's Office, including former US Attorney Alexander Acosta.
• 2:55
  Six conduct a court hearing for victims, requiring the attendance
• 2:59
  of mister Asta. Seven, provide various information to the victims,
• 3:03
  including information in the government's possession about why it did
• 3:07
  not prosecute Epstein's crimes, grand jury material information from the FBI,
• 3:12
  sealed materials submitted to the government to the court, and
• 3:15
  material filed by the government in D E four fourteen
• 3:18
  and D three forty eight eight require the Justice Department
• 3:23
  to conduct a course of training for employees in the
• 3:26
  U s Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida
• 3:28
  about the CVRA, and nine order the government to pay
• 3:32
  monetary sanctions, restitution, attorney fees and costs. The government asserts
• 3:38
  that these remedies are not authorized by the CVRA. The government, however,
• 3:42
  states that it should have communicated more effectively with petitioners
• 3:46
  and proposes the following remedies. One the Department of Justice
• 3:50
  will designate a representative to meet with petitioners and other
• 3:53
  victims to discuss the decision to resolve the Epstein case. Two,
• 3:58
  the government will participate in a public court proceeding in
• 4:01
  which petitioners can make a victim impact statement. And three,
• 4:04
  all criminal prosecutors in the US Attorney's Office for the
• 4:07
  Southern District of Florida will undergo additional training on the CVRA,
• 4:13
  victim rights, and victim assistant issues. Prior to his death,
• 4:17
  mister Epstein addressed the recision remedies proposed by petitioners, asserting
• 4:21
  that they were unauthorized by the CVRA, precluded by contract law,
• 4:26
  the doctrines of judicial and equitable estoppel, substantative due process,
• 4:30
  separation of powers, and ripeness. Mister Epstein also opposed the
• 4:35
  government's proposed remedy of a proceeding in which unadjudicated victims
• 4:39
  make impact statements about a person who has not been
• 4:42
  convicted of or facing sentencing for a federal crime. Petitioners
• 4:48
  provided the court with a reply memoranda addressing both the
• 4:51
  government's arguments as well as those of mister Epstein. On
• 4:55
  August twelfth, twenty nineteen, petitioners filed a statement noting mister
• 4:59
  eppsie Stein's death. As part of that notice, Petitioners argue
• 5:03
  that mister Epstein's death rendered all of his objections to
• 5:06
  petitioners proposed remedies moot. One Moreover, petitioners contend that most
• 5:13
  of the government's objections, which were predicated on protecting Epstein's interests,
• 5:17
  are also moot. Based on this theory, petitioners urge the
• 5:21
  court to grant all petitioners proposed remedies, including invalidating the
• 5:26
  provisions in the NPA that precluded prosecution of Epstein's alleged
• 5:30
  co conspirators. Mister Epstein's attorneys responded that is death rendered
• 5:34
  petitioner's request for recision of the NPA moot. Petitioners have
• 5:39
  asked the court to strike this response since Epstein is
• 5:42
  dead and therefore he should no longer have a voice
• 5:45
  in this proceeding remedies against Jeffrey Epstein and the alleged
• 5:49
  co conspirators Jang Do one and Jane Do two seek
• 5:52
  an order finding the provisions in the NPA barring the
• 5:55
  prosecution of Epstein's alleged co conspirators null and void to
• 5:59
  the extent they prevent their prosecution for federal crimes committed
• 6:03
  in the Southern District of Florida against Jane Do one
• 6:06
  or two, or any other victim of a federal sex
• 6:09
  crime offense committed by Epstein's alleged co conspirators within the
• 6:12
  Southern District of Florida. Article three of the US Constitution
• 6:17
  grants the judiciary the authority to adjudicate cases and controversies.
• 6:22
  In our system of government, courts have no business deciding
• 6:25
  legal disputes or expounding on law in the absence of
• 6:28
  such a case of controversy. An actual controversy must exist
• 6:33
  not only at the time the complaint is filed, but
• 6:35
  through all stages of the litigation. To qualify as a
• 6:39
  case fit for federal court adjudication, an actual controversy must
• 6:43
  be extant to all stages of review, not merely at
• 6:47
  the time the complaints filed. A justiceable case or controversy
• 6:52
  must be present at all stages of review. Here there
• 6:56
  is no longer an Article three controversy permitting the court
• 6:59
  to address the r ropritateness of the remedy of recision.
• 7:02
  As a result of mister Epstein's death, there can be
• 7:05
  no criminal prosecution against him, and the court cannot consider
• 7:08
  granting this relief to the victims. Mootonist demands that there
• 7:12
  be something about the case that remains alive, present, real,
• 7:15
  and immediate to that of federal court can provide redress
• 7:19
  in some palpable way. Likewise, the court without jurisdiction to
• 7:24
  grant petitioner's request for recision of the NPA provisions with
• 7:28
  respect to mister Epstein's alleged co conspirators. That request invites
• 7:32
  the court to render an advisory opinion. Strict application of
• 7:36
  the rightness doctrine prevents federal courts from rendering impermissible advisory
• 7:40
  opinions and wasting resources through review of potential or abstract disputes.
• 7:47
  While the constitutional aspect of the rightness inquiry focuses on
• 7:51
  whether Article three requirements of an actual case or controversy
• 7:55
  you're met, the prudential aspect asks whether it's appropriate for
• 7:59
  this case to be litigate in a federal court by
• 8:01
  these parties at this time. By requesting a decision of
• 8:05
  the NPA with respect to the alleged co conspirators, petitioners
• 8:09
  seek a ruling affecting the rights of non parties to
• 8:11
  the case. If the Court granted such relief and a
• 8:14
  criminal prosecution was to be instituted against the alleged co conspirators,
• 8:19
  they would be free to assert the benefits if any
• 8:21
  which inerred to them under the NPA as a bar
• 8:24
  to any prosecution. The question of the validity of the
• 8:28
  non prosecution provision of the NPA as they relate to
• 8:31
  the alleged co conspirators will have to be litigated with
• 8:34
  their participation if any prosecution against them is ever brought.
• 8:39
  Any decision by this court on the question is meaningless
• 8:42
  without the participation In this proceeding, Mister Epstein chose to
• 8:46
  intervene in this case relative to the question of an
• 8:49
  appropriate remedy, and thus he would have been bound by
• 8:52
  any ruling issued by the court. The alleged co conspirators
• 8:56
  did not intervene, nor were they obligated to do so. Moreover,
• 9:01
  no party to this proceeding sought to join them in
• 9:04
  the case. Since the alleged co conspirators or not parties
• 9:07
  to the case, any ruling this Court makes that purports
• 9:10
  to effect their rights under the NPA would merely be
• 9:13
  advisory and is thus beyond this Court's jurisdiction. To issue
• 9:18
  a hypothetical will serve to buttress this conclusion, as was
• 9:21
  noted in the brief of the parties. This action was
• 9:24
  initiated by petitioners on July seven, two thousand and eight.
• 9:28
  Four days later, the Court held a hearing on Petitioner's
• 9:31
  request for relief. Shortly thereafter, on August fourteenth, two thousand
• 9:35
  and eight, Petitioner's council chose not to pursue the request
• 9:39
  to invalidate the NPA at the time, but rather sought
• 9:41
  production of the NPA to evaluate it and decide how
• 9:45
  petitioners wish to proceed. Thereafter, there was no activity on
• 9:49
  the merits of the case for two years. During which
• 9:52
  time mister Epstein performed under the NPA. The court then
• 9:55
  issued an order to show cause as to why the
• 9:58
  case should be dismissed for lack of prosecution. After receiving
• 10:02
  the petitioner's response to the order to show cause, the
• 10:05
  court permitted the case to proceed and let the parties
• 10:08
  begin to litigate the case on the merits. Let us
• 10:11
  assume at that point in the litigation, at which time
• 10:14
  mister Epstein had not intervened, rather than challenging petitioners claims,
• 10:18
  the US had decided that it erred in failing to
• 10:21
  advise the victims of intent to enter into the NPA,
• 10:24
  and agreed to settle the case with petitioners. Petitioners and
• 10:29
  the United States then entered into a settlement agreement which provided,
• 10:32
  in relevant part, that they would submit a joint stipulation
• 10:36
  to the Court for entry of a consent decree, a
• 10:39
  provision of which would hold that the NPA was invalid
• 10:44
  and the non prosecution in the NPA was null and void.
• 10:47
  The consent decree would further provide that the U. S.
• 10:49
  Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida was free
• 10:52
  to prosecute mister Epstein for any federal crimes which he
• 10:56
  may have committed relative to the victims. Let us further
• 10:59
  assume that the court approve the settlement and entered a
• 11:02
  consent decree consistent with it. The US Attorney's Office for
• 11:05
  the Southern District of Florida, armed with the dissent decree,
• 11:09
  holding that the NPA was invalid, then proceeded before the
• 11:12
  grand jury and obtained an indictment against mister Epstein. Mister
• 11:16
  Epstein is then arrested, and a criminal case against them proceeds.
• 11:20
  Under this hypothetical set of facts, could anyone seriously contend
• 11:23
  that mister Epstein would be bound to the consent decree
• 11:27
  which was entered in a case to which he was
• 11:29
  not a party in which he has no opportunity to
• 11:31
  be heard. Of course, not any such contention would be absurd.
• 11:36
  The consent decree would have been advisory only and not
• 11:40
  binding in any way against mister Epstein. The validity of
• 11:44
  the NPA would have to be litigated within the context
• 11:47
  of the criminal case brought against them. That is precisely
• 11:50
  the case with which the alleged co conspirators. The United
• 11:54
  States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida can
• 11:57
  make an independent judgment as to whether it believes it's
• 12:00
  bound by the non prosecution provision of the NPA as
• 12:03
  it relates to the alleged co conspirators and proceed accordingly.
• 12:07
  If the office concludes it's not bound and chooses not
• 12:10
  to pursue criminal charges against those individuals, the validity of
• 12:13
  the non prosecution provision will appropriately be resolved within the
• 12:17
  context of those criminal proceedings. All right, folks, are going
• 12:21
  to wrap up episode one right there, and in the
• 12:23
  next episode, we're going to finish this bad boy off.
• 12:26
  All of the information that goes with this episode can
• 12:28
  be found in the description box.