Thread by @JamesHillABC

A federal judge in FLA ruled Thursday that DOJ violated the victims' rights in its non-prosecution agreement w/ Jeffrey Epstein - for failure to consult w/ the victims & keep them informed of the deal The suit vs. DOJ was brought in 2008 by two then teen victims of Epstein.

The Court is giving the parties 15 days to weigh in on what happens next. Expect a big fight over what the remedy might be, now that the court has found the Epstein deal violated the victims' rights.

One possible remedy already raised by the court, and the one sought by the plaintiff victims, is a rescission of the agreement.

Epstein is not a party to this case. It’s between Jane Doe 1 & 2 and the US DOJ. The judge, however, long ago (in 2014) granted Epstein’s motion for limited intervention in the case at the remedy stage. So that’s where it’s headed now.

Epstein argued in a motion filed in July of 2013 that he has “a clear and compelling interest in opposing any remedy that would entail rescission of his non-prosecution agreement with the government...”. Plaintiffs did not oppose the motion

Epstein lawyers in 2013 wrote that he had “specific, personal, and private interests in the non-rescission” of the NPA “including his constitutional right to due process of law,” “his detrimental reliance”on the deal &“his full performance” of “his many obligations”

The DOJ argued several yrs ago in this case, that a remedy of rescission of Epstein’s deal would be prohibited by Due Process guarantees, even if the deal violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA).

DOJ argued, in the alternative, that even if the judge set the NPA aside, the “gesture would be futile” b/c DOJ would still be legally bound to abide by the terms of the 2007 deal, & therefore victims could never get what they really want, which is for Epstein to be prosecuted.

Judge Marra disagreed with DOJ, siding w/ the victims’ arguments that there is a remedy available to “redress the injury complained of” i.e. the setting aside of the NPA as “a prelude to the full unfettered exercise” of their rights to confer w/ gov’t while it actually matters

Judge Marra faulted DOJ for “its misidentification of the alleged injury” to the victims. It’s not that gov’t failed to prosecute Epstein federally - something in the sole discretion & control of DOJ.

It’s the failure to confer w/ victims b4 making the deal, he said

The last few tweets in the thread refer to Judge Kenneth Marra’s June 2013 ruling denying the DOJ’s motion to dismiss.

So what Marra was saying in 2013 is that 1 possible remedy - if he found a violation of CVRA (which he now has) - is a rescission of the Epstein NPA & an order for the DOJ to properly handle its obligations to confer w/ the victims before deciding on the disposition of the case.

Here's a piece I wrote on this case back in Feb. 2016, when the victims filed their motion for partial summary judgment, which Judge Marra granted today.
abcnews.go.com/US/victims-fed…

Epstein’s NPA agreement - which immunized him from federal charges for alleged sex crimes with more than 30 underage girls - was not only controversial, it was kept a complete secret from the victims and the courts for many months. And it contained some very unusual provisions..

A). The deal immunized not only Esptein, but any alleged co-conspirators who may have participated in or facilitated in the federal crimes. The original version of the agreement contained 4 specific names of people, but those were removed in later versions

I won’t mention those names because none of those people have ever been charged, but I know who they are, and they surely know who they are. I don’t know if these people were ever in any serious jeopardy of prosecution or if Epstein was just trying to make sure to protect them

If the court were decide that the appropriate remedy is to tear up Epstein’s NPA, he’ll have a strong due process argument (among other arguments) that he can’t be prosecuted for these crimes since he has already fulfilled his obligations under he deal

But these possible co-conspirators - who also enjoyed the protection of the non-prosecution deal - have faced no consequences. If they have ever had any risk of criminal exposure - and if they still do after all these yrs - they could, in theory lose immunity if NPA is ripped up

B). The 2nd very unusual provision in Epstein’s deal was a requirement that he pay for a civil attorney for each of the identified victims of his crimes. Effectively - he agreed to fund an attorney to pay for the girls to sue himself. The catch was that the girls had to ..

.. limit their claims to the amount permitted under the federal law requiring victim restitution for certain categories of sex offenses. (I think it was $100k at the time). If the girls proceeded just under that restitution statute, Epstein could not contest his liability

If any of victims decided they wanted to pursue other claims or torts against Epstein (or more $) then Epstein was permitted under the deal to contest those claims. Essentially DOJ was trying to set up a situation as if Epstein had actually been convicted of those offenses.

Some of the victims, once they finally learned what had actually happened, were willing to accept the restitution provisions, some settled privately w/ Epstein & some said ‘no thanks’ & retained private attorneys to sue outside the NPA deal. Every case eventually settled.

So here’s how that restitution provision complicates matters now that the Judge has ruled the NPA violated the law. If the judge tears it up & basically rewinds to a point where there was no deal, then what happens to the $ Epstein paid those girls?

At least in theory, if judge tears up Epstein NPA, then he could say, ‘then I want all my $ back that I paid lawyers to represent the girls who sued me, and I want all the $ back I paid the girls.’ Hard to see him willing to take that step, but it shows how complex this could be

Epstein's principal argument likely to be that he has fulfilled his obligations of the deal (served his time, registered as sex offender, paid restitution), so tearing up the deal would implicate his constitutional due process rights

A reminder of how long this Jeffrey Epstein case has been going on, and how the basic arguments haven't changed since the day a Florida attorney named Brad Edwards walked into federal court with a demand to be heard on behalf of his client, who was 14 when she met Epstein

Edwards filed this motion on July 7, 2008 saying his client's rights were being violated b/c he'd heard feds were making a deal w/ Epstein. Court Clerk told Edwards he wouldn't a hearing right away if not an emergency. So Edwards scribbled the word 'Emergency' onto his filing.

At a hearing 4 days later, on July 11 2008 attorney Edwards called "unconscionable" what he thought was a proposed plea deal. But then the DOJ admitted in the hearing that they'd secretly reached an NPA w/ Epstein 9 mos. earlier in Oct 2007.

Now almost 11 after that first court hearing, the victims finally have a ruling in their favor, that the Epstein NPA violated their rights. But Alex Acosta & every US Atty who followed him in Miami continued to fight the victims' case for all those yrs.

It's worth going back to the first words uttered by attorney Brad Edwards from the podium in Judge Marra's courtroom on July 11 2008. It was clear even that DOJ had secretly negotiated a deal with a prolific sex offender behind the backs of dozens of underage victims.

Why did this take so long?