In a letter to Congress, the lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator says clemency would allow her to talk to lawmakers.
Archive - https://archive.is/I2XSz
In a letter to Congress, the lawyer for Jeffrey Epstein’s convicted co-conspirator says clemency would allow her to talk to lawmakers.
Archive - https://archive.is/I2XSz
It is the defendant’s fault because he is a criminal who chose to make a deal that protected other criminals while stealing justice from victims. Also, the guy is dead.
He made a deal on the behalf of other people, not himself. Those other people did not agree to this deal. The person who did agree to the deal is dead. The government honored the illegal deal until he died.
You say my murder example is stupid because “that’s clearly an illegal act.” This deal is clearly an illegal act. It is illegal to make this deal. Period. Just because the lawyers agreed to the deal does not make it any less illegal. It is and was illegal. You say “honor your deal” but ignore that the deal was illegal. In the US Justice system, illegal deals are not binding.
I’m not arguing just to argue. This is important stuff. The basis of our legal system isn’t “honoring handshake agreements.” There are real reasons why we have laws and don’t go by backroom deals. The justice system is a deal between the government and the people to protect victims and deliver justice. Honoring this illegal deal is breaking the agreement between the victims and their government.
And nice try making me out to the some kind of bad guy and saying I don’t keep my word. What kind of ignorant argument is that? If the government said my word was illegal then I would be forced by law to go back on my word. That is the case here. One party made an illegal agreement that cannot be legally held.
If you made an agreement to buy a car from someone, but that someone actually sold you a stolen car, guess what happens. The answer is not that you get to keep the stolen car because the person who broke the law needs to keep his side of the bargain. The person who had their car stolen gets it back (hopefully).
In this case, one of the parties who made the agreement is dead. The other party broke the law in making the agreement. The people who are being protected by the agreement never agreed to it in the first place. So it makes no sense to honor an agreement between a dead guy and a criminal lawyer in order to protect other criminals.
No you are arguing just to argue.
I never said anything about “honoring handshake agreements” as the basis of our justice system and this isn’t a handshake agreement. It was literally done in a court of law.
Once again the defendant is NOT AT FAULT. If you want to put blame on anyone then you put it on the prosecutor. And the reason why you claim he is at fault is the literal definition for granting immunity. Immunity means you cannot be prosecuted for the crimes committed within it’s scope. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with a lot of cases that were won because immunity was granted towards co-conspirators.
The govt should honor their agreement regardless of if the person is alive or dead. Would you be ok with the govt reneging on a deal if the victim died? Someone takes a plea deal and gets 15yrs, the victim dies in year 5, the govt goes back on the deal and releases the inmate. Is that ok? I bet it isn’t.
The deal was not clearly illegal and ONCE AGAIN THE FAULT IS WITH THE PROSECUTOR. Did the prosecutor know if the deal was illegal? The deal they made? The deal was done in federal court between the defendant, his lawyer, the prosecutor, AND approved by the fucking judge. You’re telling me that of all those legal experts involved the only one at fault is the one person who isn’t a legal expert (the defendant) and because those legal experts made an illegal deal that the defendant has to be punished for agreeing to the deal that all the legal experts drafted for him? Shut the fuck up. You’re just here to argue.
https://www.justice.gov/usao/resources/crime-victims-rights-ombudsman/victims-rights-act
"A crime victim has the following rights:
(2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
(4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
(9) The right to be informed in a timely manner of any plea bargain or deferred prosecution agreement."
The crime victims were not given those rights. This agreement was clearly illegal.
Also, the defendant isn’t being punished. The defendant is dead.
Who was the one who wrote that agreement that Epstein signed? That’s the person you have beef with. And this has gone off topic. I argue that if the govt made an agreement in their plea agreement then they have to honor it. I don’t give a fuck about legality of the agreement. If they make the agreement, both parties sign it, and the judge approved it then honor it. There is nothing you can say that will change my mind.