SCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie. Does that mean the SCOTUS condones the prosecution of all of the conspirators now?
Does this mean all of the conspirators involved in this child sex ring are in season for the hunt now? After all, the legal wording in the document doesn't mean anything because it is not worthy of a SCOTUS court ruling.
Is this a dangerous precedent?
@Metal-Brain saidThis is a link to the plea agreement:
SCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie. Does that mean the SCOTUS condones the prosecution of all of the conspirators now?
Does this mean all of the conspirators involved in this child sex ring are in season for the hunt now? After all, ...[text shortened]... mean anything because it is not worthy of a SCOTUS court ruling.
Is this a dangerous precedent?
https://reason.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Non-Prosecution-Agreement-1433.pdf
Please argue which clause was not honoured and why so.
Oh and in which university are you teaching law?
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidSCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie.
SCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie. Does that mean the SCOTUS condones the prosecution of all of the conspirators now?
Does this mean all of the conspirators involved in this child sex ring are in season for the hunt now? After all, ...[text shortened]... mean anything because it is not worthy of a SCOTUS court ruling.
Is this a dangerous precedent?
No it does not. When SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, it usually means the SCOTUS believes the ruling of the lower court was sufficient, and further action by the higher court is not necessary.
2 edits
@Metal-Brain saidThe agreement said this:
SCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie. Does that mean the SCOTUS condones the prosecution of all of the conspirators now?
Does this mean all of the conspirators involved in this child sex ring are in season for the hunt now? After all, ...[text shortened]... mean anything because it is not worthy of a SCOTUS court ruling.
Is this a dangerous precedent?
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1
and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been
the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation
will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein
if any, will be dismissed.13
The charges filed against Maxwell where in the Southern District of New York, not the Southern District of Florida where the plea agreement was made. The 2nd Circuit held that a plea agreement in one district is not binding in other districts unless there is clear language in it saying so. In this case, the language made it clear the agreement was only applicable in the District it was made:
"It is well established in our Circuit that “[a] plea agreement binds
only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which
the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement
9See, e.g., United States v. Walters, 910 F.3d 11, 22 (2d Cir. 2018).
10 A-178.
contemplates a broader restriction.”11 And while Maxwell contends
that we cannot apply Annabi to an agreement negotiated and executed
outside of this Circuit, we have previously done just that.12 Applying
Annabi, we conclude that the NPA did not bar Maxwell’s prosecution
by USAO-SDNY. There is nothing in the NPA that affirmatively shows
that the NPA was intended to bind multiple districts. Instead, where
the NPA is not silent, the agreement’s scope is expressly limited to the
Southern District of Florida. The NPA makes clear that if Epstein
fulfilled his obligations, he would no longer face charges in that district:
https://cases.justia.com/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/22-1426/22-1426-2024-09-17.pdf?ts=1726581609
Denial of cert doesn't have precedential value BTW. But legal wording obviously meant something here.
@no1marauder said"the language made it clear the agreement was only applicable in the District it was made"
The agreement said this:
After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1
and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been
the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from t ...[text shortened]... enial of cert doesn't have precedential value BTW. But legal wording obviously meant something here.
Then anybody outside of that district is fair game. Lock them up!
@mchill saidDid the SCOTUS say that?
SCOTUS refused to accept G. Maxwell's case. That means the legal wording in Epstein's sweetheart deal that said all conspirators would be immune from prosecution was a lie.
No it does not. When SCOTUS refuses to hear a case, it usually means the SCOTUS believes the ruling of the lower court was sufficient, and further action by the higher court is not necessary.
@Metal-Brain saidIt doesn't say anything but we deny cert when it denies cert.
Did the SCOTUS say that?
@no1marauder saidAre you claiming that every case the SCOTUS refuses to hear is legally justified? I am keenly aware of your tendency to oppose slavery. You don't think I can find a good example from that history?
It doesn't say anything but we deny cert when it denies cert.
1 edit
@Metal-Brain saidI don't care what you think you can find.
Are you claiming that every case the SCOTUS refuses to hear is legally justified? I am keenly aware of your tendency to oppose slavery. You don't think I can find a good example from that history?
The premise of the OP is flawed; the Second Circuit didn't ignore "legal wording" - it applied it. Just because you think that isn't "legally justified" doesn't mean anything.
Granted, some other circuits have held differently but the case was tried where it was tried under the law that applied there and has applied for 40 years. The SCOTUS doesn't typically explain it's decisions to deny cert, but sometimes there are dissents - there were no recorded ones here.
@no1marauder
Assuming the SCOTUS is never wrong is wrong.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/does-we-people-include-corporations/
Not hearing a case is the best way to avoid making a mockery of the SCOTUS that is an obvious injustice. Are you in the mood to defend the Dread /Scott decision? If SCOTUS had refused to hear the case would you have been happy with that?
@Metal-Brain saidThe Court gets 7-8,000 petitions for cert each year and grants about 80.https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
@no1marauder
Assuming the SCOTUS is never wrong is wrong.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/does-we-people-include-corporations/
Not hearing a case is the best way to avoid making a mockery of the SCOTUS that is an obvious injustice. Are you in the mood to defend the Dread /Scott decision? If SCOTUS had refused to hear the case would you have been happy with that?
Maxwell's case is hardly an "injustice".
@Metal-Brain saidMr. Metalbrain - Are you even aware that you're arguing legal issues with a lawyer?
@no1marauder
Assuming the SCOTUS is never wrong is wrong.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/resources/human-rights/archive/does-we-people-include-corporations/
Not hearing a case is the best way to avoid making a mockery of the SCOTUS that is an obvious injustice. Are you in the mood to defend the Dread /Scott decision? If SCOTUS had refused to hear the case would you have been happy with that?
Unless you have a law degree (highly unlikely) you're only displaying your ignorance. 🙄
@no1marauder saidAre corporations individual people?
The Court gets 7-8,000 petitions for cert each year and grants about 80.https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Maxwell's case is hardly an "injustice".
@no1marauder saidI never called it an "injustice". Maxwell is probably a horrible person that deserves it. Read what I wrote, not what you imagine I wrote.
The Court gets 7-8,000 petitions for cert each year and grants about 80.https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx
Maxwell's case is hardly an "injustice".