epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00000312.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-80736-KAM",
    "date": "07/06/2019",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2019 Page 8 of 20 see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, \"[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on speculative possibilities,\" In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, \"[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily reaching constitutional issues.\" Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280. In these proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can \"confer with the attorney for the Government\" about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 6-7 (seeking an \"[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid\" so that Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 2 ¶ 5 (claiming that Petitioner was \"denied her rights\" under the CVRA because she \"received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges\"). Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners \"about what happened\" to them); DE 7 DOJ-OGR-00000312",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 209 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/06/2019 Page 8 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "see also, e.g., Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger, 899 F.2d 1164, 1165 (11th Cir. 1990). Under the doctrine, \"[a] claim is not ripe when it is based on speculative possibilities,\" In re Jacks, 642 F.3d 1323, 1332 (11th Cir. 2011), such as if the claim \"rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at all,\" Atlanta Gas Light Co. v. FERC, 140 F.3d 1392, 1404 (11th Cir. 1998) (quoting Texas v. United States, 523 U.S. 296, 300 (1998)). Indeed, \"[t]he ripeness doctrine is designed to prevent federal courts from engaging in such speculation and prematurely and perhaps unnecessarily reaching constitutional issues.\" Pittman, 267 F.3d at 1280. In these proceedings, the Petitioners have sought to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Epstein and the USAO-SDFL so that Petitioners can \"confer with the attorney for the Government\" about the possible filing of federal criminal charges against Epstein and the potential disposition of any such charges. See, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 6-7 (seeking an \"[o]rder that the [non-prosecution] agreement that was negotiated is invalid\" so that Petitioners can exercise the right to confer with the government); id. at 19-20, 24; 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5); see also DE 1 at 2 ¶ 5 (claiming that Petitioner was \"denied her rights\" under the CVRA because she \"received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding the possible disposition of the charges\"). Notwithstanding the Non-Prosecution Agreement, Petitioners are and have been free to confer with attorneys for the government about the investigation and potential prosecution of Epstein. At least one attorney for the government (Assistant United States Attorney Villafaña from the USAO-SDFL) had spoken to Petitioners about the offenses committed against them by Epstein prior to the signing of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, see, e.g., July 11, 2008 Hr'g Tr. at 22 (acknowledging that prosecutors spoke to Petitioners \"about what happened\" to them); DE",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000312",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Villafaña"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "July 11, 2008",
      "07/06/2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-80736-KAM",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000312"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Association For Children for Enforcement of Support, Inc. v. Conger. The text discusses the ripeness doctrine and its application to the case. The document includes citations to various court cases and statutes."
}