Originally published at: https://boingboing.net/2019/07/11/jeffrey-epsteins-lawyers-arg.html
Oddly, convicted sex offender didn’t ask feds to return his child porn stash
6 Likes
He has enough money to start the collection over.
It sure seems difficult to keep a rich person in jail.
14 Likes
31 Likes
It seems they’re arguing about old charges when he’s actually been brought in on new charges. Am I reading this right?
14 Likes
There is a lot about this document which is incredibly bold when you consider the facts of the case. Example:
pinpointing his exact nightly whereabouts –across multiple jurisdictions over a 10-year period.
It’s like they are haggling, almost. Dictating a completely foreign reality, hoping that the halfway point they settle on after some debate is further than where they stand today.
21 Likes
This line blew my mind. It all happened in one apartment, even though we know that’s plainly not true.
14 Likes
Yeah, takes a plea for raping children, gets put on the sex offender list, his lawyers call it a ‘brush with the law’.
I ONCE got stopped for speeding - no ticket, RCMP officer told me to slow down a bit. That was a brush with the law.
38 Likes
If he was serious he’d have added:
- Implant a non removable explosive charge in his skull that can will be remotely activated if he fails to show for trial or leaves Manhattan.
19 Likes
Your honor, we ask the court to take into consideration Mr. Epstein’s long history of hands-on work with children…
8 Likes
From the link:
The NYPD had earlier argued that Epstein was not required to check in with them because he claims his primary residence is in the U.S. Virgin Islands, not in New York.
Wait, what? So, as long as you are rich enough to claim to live in the Virgin Islands sex offenders don’t have to actually follow a judges order or report to the NYPD? Even if they have a residence they live in in NY? :-/
5 Likes
Every new revelation about the Epstein case is completely bonkers.
Even for a timeline where Trump is president.
8 Likes
I’m surprised Mr. Epstein’s lawyers would invoke anything that’s 14 years old as a reason to cut him some slack.
26 Likes
If we cut him the exact right amount of slack, his head will rocket off when it comes time to hang him.
8 Likes
“Believe me, your honor, this list is more like 14 going on 30.”
10 Likes
3 words: Civil Asset Forfeiture. His lawyers are essentially admitting that, at least the mansion, was ground zero for these crimes. Seize it.
I mean, shit, CAF has been used to do SO much bad, let’s use it for good for a change.
16 Likes
They’re arguing, I think, that all the acts currently being prosecuted are essentially the same crime covered in the plea deal.
2 Likes
This is where I’m a bit confused. As I vaguely understand it the New York office says it’s not bound by the Florida office’s non-prosecution deal and that it can charge him with the exact same Federal charges the Florida office dropped. And while I do want to see this turd go to jail, and there must be plenty of fresh charges available, even ones from back then, I don’t see how plea bargains can work if the Fed can later just have a different office charge you with the crimes they agreed to drop in exchange for a plea. (But I also think the plea deal should be voided because it was illegal, which is a slightly different issue.)
3 Likes
Yes, this is exactly what I mean, gathered from previous news about his latest arrest.
From what I understand, there are also many victims stepping up who hadn’t before out of fear.
2 Likes
According to the articles I’ve read, the plea deal covered state prostitution charges. So it’s not a different office of the feds, if I understand correctly. I think federal charges have always been possible apart from state charges. The specific crimes would be different at the federal level. At least that’s what Law & Order has taught me.
I’m not clear on why the U.S. Attorney was involved the first time.
ETA: After reading additional coverage, it seem Acosta did a federal non-prosecution deal to allow him to plead guilty to state charges, but NY claims that deal only covers the other district. We’ll have to see if that argument holds true. If it does, it seems Epstein’s legal team did a pretty poor job the first time around.
1 Like
This is a pretty good explanation: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/jeffrey-epstein-indictment-hes-out-luck/593512/
Long story short, there are very clear rules about what a US Attorneys office has to do to bind other offices to a plea deal, and Acosta didn’t follow them (it remains to be seen whether that was intentional or not).
7 Likes
