epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00000308.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-80736-KAM",
    "date": "07/09/2019",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2019 Page 4 of 20\n\nWater Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) (“If at any point in the litigation the plaintiff ceases to meet all three requirements for constitutional standing, the case no longer presents a live case or controversy, and the federal court must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he issue of constitutional standing is jurisdictional . . .”); National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1242 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause the constitutional standing doctrine stems directly from Article III’s ‘case or controversy’ requirement, this issue implicates our subject matter jurisdiction, and accordingly must be addressed as a threshold matter regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.”) (citation omitted).\n\nIn these proceedings, the only identified legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek “is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement”). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners’ rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non-Prosecution Agreement – which by its terms induced Epstein to, inter alia, plead guilty to state criminal charges and serve an 18-month sentence of state incarceration3 – or the governmental\n\nthis Court need not reach or address those issues because an analysis of the third prong of the standing test incontrovertibly establishes the Petitioners’ lack of standing. Nonetheless, the circumstances which demonstrate Petitioners’ lack of a concrete injury traceable to government conduct are explored infra in Section II of this memorandum, which addresses how Petitioners’ claims and these proceedings lack constitutional ripeness.\n\n3 See also July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr. at 20-21 (Petitioners’ acknowledgement that Epstein’s reliance on promises in Non-Prosecution Agreement led to his guilty plea to state charges and his",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/09/2019 Page 4 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Water Management Dist., 647 F.3d 1296, 1302 (11th Cir. 2011) (“If at any point in the litigation the plaintiff ceases to meet all three requirements for constitutional standing, the case no longer presents a live case or controversy, and the federal court must dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”); Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., 489 F.3d 1156, 1161 (11th Cir. 2007) (“[T]he issue of constitutional standing is jurisdictional . . .”); National Parks Conservation Ass’n v. Norton, 324 F.3d 1229, 1242 (11th Cir. 2003) (“[B]ecause the constitutional standing doctrine stems directly from Article III’s ‘case or controversy’ requirement, this issue implicates our subject matter jurisdiction, and accordingly must be addressed as a threshold matter regardless of whether it is raised by the parties.”) (citation omitted).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In these proceedings, the only identified legal relief that Petitioners have sought pursuant to the CVRA is the setting aside of the Non-Prosecution Agreement that was entered into between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida (“USAO-SDFL”). See, e.g., DE 99 at 6 (recognizing that the relief Petitioners seek “is to invalidate the non-prosecution agreement”). But even assuming arguendo that Petitioners’ rights under the CVRA were violated when Epstein and the USAO-SDFL entered into the Non-Prosecution Agreement, constitutional due process guarantees do not allow either the Non-Prosecution Agreement – which by its terms induced Epstein to, inter alia, plead guilty to state criminal charges and serve an 18-month sentence of state incarceration3 – or the governmental",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "this Court need not reach or address those issues because an analysis of the third prong of the standing test incontrovertibly establishes the Petitioners’ lack of standing. Nonetheless, the circumstances which demonstrate Petitioners’ lack of a concrete injury traceable to government conduct are explored infra in Section II of this memorandum, which addresses how Petitioners’ claims and these proceedings lack constitutional ripeness.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 See also July 11, 2008 Hr’g Tr. at 20-21 (Petitioners’ acknowledgement that Epstein’s reliance on promises in Non-Prosecution Agreement led to his guilty plea to state charges and his",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-0000308",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 11, 2008",
      "07/09/2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-80736-KAM",
      "DE 99",
      "DOJ-OGR-0000308"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}