If it says that, hard to understand why she was prosecuted. What is the counter argument?
Iâm surprised this issue hasnât been brought before the Court until now.
There is a split in Circuits courts opinions on the scope of a non-prosecution agreement by a federal prosecutor. That is almost a cinch the SC will hear the case.
1 Like
My guess is that, as the agreement was struck in 2008, it cannot apply to future crimes. Given that Epstein continued raping children after 2008 - even while serving his sentence - itâs safe to assume that Maxwell was serving them up to him after 2008 too. What I donât know is how many of Maxwellâs charges stem from post-2008 trafficking, if any.
Also, in 2019, a Federal judge ruled the Acosta agreement illegal because Acosta et al failed to inform the victims prior to the plea deal being signed.
SCOTUS has never weighed in on the 2019 ruling, so my expectation is that they will toss that aside - perhaps saying that the need to advise the victims is just a procedural guideline - then throw out all charges stemming from pre-2008 crimes because of the immunity deal, and then toss the whole thing because the pre-2008 charges were prejudicial to Maxwellâs defense.
At least, if I was a sociopathic cuntbag with monied friends on the Epstein list, thatâs what Iâd do.
Read the New Yorker article.
I would have to read the agreement and do research on your âfuture crimesâ guess.
1 Like
There are past crimes too that arenât covered by agreement, but not the big ones. Hereâs the best summary paragraph from the New Yorker:
Does one U.S. Attorneyâs agreement on behalf of the United States bind federal prosecutors in other districts? After all, they are all part of the Department of Justice, and all of them represent the U.S. government in enforcing federal law. If so, Maxwell, as a beneficiary of the agreementâs provision of immunity, is entitled to have her conviction for sex trafficking of a minor, for which she received the longest sentence, vacated. (She was also convicted of several other crimes that occurred before the 2001-07 time frame covered by the non-prosecution agreement.) The issue extends well beyond Maxwell. At least two appellate courtsâincluding the Second Circuit, which rejected Maxwellâs appeal of her convictionsâhold that an agreement binds only the specific U.S. Attorneyâs Office that is a party to it. At least four appellate courts have taken a contrary position: that a U.S. Attorneyâs promise on behalf of the United States binds all federal prosecutors, meaning that none of them could bring charges covered by a non-prosecution agreement. The upshot of the split is that, in addition to federal prosecutors in Florida who are bound by the Epstein agreement, those in, say, New Jersey, Virginia, California, and Iowaâand even the U.S. Virgin Islands, where Epsteinâs notorious island was locatedâcould not have brought charges resolved in that agreement, while federal prosecutors in New York could and did.
1 Like
Yeah, the NYer article got put up while I was busy typing my rant.
So it seems that future crimes were not immunized by AcostaâŚand how could they be? But it also seems that Maxwellâs convictions stem largely from pre-2008 crimes, which means they should be thrown out on the basis of the immunity deal. The article infers that much of her 20-year sentence stems from those pre-2008 crimes, so whatâs left may have already been served.
SCOTUS has turned itself into a pretzel trying to appease Trump over whether a single federal judge can issue a countrywide injunction on a Trump executive order (they said one cannot). So ruling that the Acosta deal from Florida does not apply to New York would follow their new precedent.
Which is why they wonât rule that way, somehow exempt this specific situation from their new bullshit precedent, and set Maxwell free.
Basically all roads lead to âset Maxwell freeâ, it just depends which one they take.
FWIW, Acostaâs deal should apply to New York, otherwise whatâs the point of a federal court system? Principles are not principles if you stick to them only when itâs convenient. The original sin here is Acostaâs agreement and, as awful as the outcome will be, we should not be tearing down the federal court system because of it.
There are due process differences between civil injunctions and criminal agreements that could be a possible distinction. Having only read the NYer article, this seems like a messy enough situation that the court could have waited for a cleaner presentation of the issue to address the circuit split. The fact that it chose to take on this case is troubling.
1 Like
This SCOTUS taking any case is troubling.
3 Likes
No, thereâs a whole host of other reasons to do that.
1 Like
SCOTUS has thrown out the rule that prevents a president from wholesale firing of federal employees. This, obviously, is a gift to Trump.
What it also means is that it will be easier to deTrumpify the federal government once heâs gone.
Oh, I fully expect them to change their minds (on many of their previous rulings), if a non-Republican ever gets in charge.
1 Like
Justice Jackson nailed it exactly: âThis is Calvinball jurisprudence with a twist. Calvinball has only one rule: There are no fixed rules. We seem to have two: that one, and this administration always wins.â
3 Likes
Clearance Thomas said recently that SCOTUS decisions are not âgospelâ.
Pour one out for stare decisis.
So Plessy v. Ferguson should have been stare decisis?
Sometimes your rants get out of control. No court decision is ever gospel.
2 Likes
Marbury v. Madison used to be âgospel.â
Now�
Even the Constitution is not gospel. Evidenced by 27 ratified amendments, some even cancelling each other out.
1 Like
âŚeven the stuff that contradicts the other stuffâŚ
1 Like
Hallelujah.
Any thoughts on Marbury? Itâs ok. Its old and irrelevant. Not worth thinking bout.