Initially, I did not intend to post the opinion issued today about the Jeffrey Epstein sexual abuse matter. That case involves an alleged sweetheart deal given to billionaire Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida. Epstein was (and is) alleged to have engaged in a massive, ongoing campaign of sexual abuse of young girls. The U.S. Attorney at the time Epstein was charged was Alex Acosta, now Trump’s Secretary of Labor. Currently at issue is whether the U.S. Attorney’s Office intentionally failed to notify the victims of the plea bargain with Epstein. Today, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (per Marra, J.) issued an opinion holding that at least two of the victims had their rights to conferral violated. The opinion shows that Acosta and his office actively sought to hide the plea bargain.
In reading the opinion, I came across this passage:
On about November 30, 2007, U.S. Attorney Acosta sent a letter to one of Epstein’s defense attorneys, Kenneth Starr, stating: “I am directing our prosecutors not to issue victim notification letters until this Friday at 5 p.m., to provide you with time to review these options with your client.” The letter also explained that the line prosecutor had informed U.S. Attorney Acosta “that the victims were not told of the availability of Section 2255 relief during the investigation phase of this matter” despite the fact that the “[r]ule of law . . . now requires this District to consider the victims’ rights under this statute in negotiating this Agreement.” On December 5, 2007, Starr sent a letter to U.S. Attorney Acosta (with copy to AUSA Sloman) asking about issuance of victim notification letters and stating: “While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it.”
Slip op. at 14, record references deleted.
This is what is known as situational ethics.
It is not clear to me what the quoted paragraph means.
What’s an AUSA?
“While we believe that it is wholly inappropriate for your Office to send this letter under any circumstances, it is certainly inappropriate to issue this letter without affording us the right to review it.”
Does “this letter” refer to the victim notification letters? If so, why might Starr have said it would be inappropriate to issue the letters, if they are required by law?
“Slip op. at 13, record references deleted.” Is this part the opinion? What does it mean?
“This is what is known as situational ethics.” Is this part of the opinion? What does it mean?
You got me curious, but I need help with this.
An “AUSA” is an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Starr was getting paid to say that ” it would be inappropriate to issue the letters.”
The phrase “this letter” refers to the victim notification letters.
When I (incorrectly) stated “Slip op. at 13, record references deleted,” it was to show that the passage was a direct quote from the opinion, but that I had deleted the references to the pages in the record of the other documents. (Note: I said “Slip op. at 13.” In fact, the page of the slip opinion is page 14 and I will shortly correct that.
The sentence “This is what is known as situational ethics” represents my comment. What does it mean” Figure that out for yourself.
I think Starr felt it was “inappropriate” because he thought that there was a corrupt understanding between the DOJ to throw the case and and the victims under the bus.
From which I draw two conclusions:
First, the intrigity of the Departement of Justice is one the line here and it’s imperative that an independent special prosecutor be appointed and that both the federal prosecutors and judges make it clear that neither the president nor his attorney general are going to be fixing this case.
Second, the non-prosecution agreement should be set aside on the basis that it was corruptly obtained. The criminal cases against all of the people covered by that agreement should be throughly and honesty investigated and we should let the chips fall where they may.
To the extent that there are issue regarding double jeopardy or the statutes of limitations, the corruptly influenced deal means that jeopardy never attached and the agreement itself, plus the DOJ’s reprehensible efforts to defend that agreement, should be considered as either tolling the statute or as part of a continuing conspiracy which would extend the SL.
Throwing all of these vile creatures into prison wouldn’t be true justice but it the best we can do until they finally arrive in the appropriate circle of hell.
Starr was representing Epstein, which involves denying that there were any victims.
Thanks. This was very helpful, except for the last line. But I guess I can live without understanding that one.