Supreme Court Asked To Look Into Jeffrey Epstein Case By Victim

( Courtney Wild, one of the first of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims to come forward, is asking the Supreme Court to review the 2008 “sweetheart deal” federal prosecutors made with Epstein. Wild claims that prosecutors violated her civil rights when they crafted this deal without first consulting with Epstein’s victims.

Wild, now 33, was reportedly “pretty much homeless” in Palm Beach, Florida when she was recruited into Epstein’s service.

As part of the deal made with prosecutors, Epstein was sentenced to eighteen months in Palm Beach County jail. However, during his sentence, Epstein was able to stay in his own private wing and leave the jail during the day to go to his office.

After the deal was struck, Wild sued the US Justice Department to obtain information on the investigation into Epstein. She then spent the next thirteen years battling through the courts.

Through her legal efforts, Wild succeeded in forcing the DOJ to admit that the US Attorney’s Office in Miami had reached a confidential deal with Epstein without informing his alleged victims.

But in April of this year, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wild’s suit should never have been allowed to proceed.

In its ruling, the Appeals Court determined that, in the absence of an existing criminal prosecution, the Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 did not apply, so Wild wasn’t permitted to sue the Justice Department over the agreement.

Wild’s attorneys are now petitioning the Supreme Court to review the 11th Circuit Court decision, arguing that unless SCOTUS intervenes, the government will be free to bypass victims in seeking similar non-prosecution agreements.

Brad Edwards, Courtney Wild’s attorney, noted that without Wild’s legal fight, the details of this sweetheart deal would never have been revealed.

In the petition to the Supreme Court, Wild’s attorneys argued that in future cases there will be no guarantee that the Government will disclose “clandestine NPAs, much less disclose them in a way that would permit the kind of district and appellate court challenges that occurred here.”