© James MesserschmidtCourtney Wild is seen during a 2019 press conference.
Courtney Wild, 32 — who claims the financier sexually abused her starting when she was just 14 — was trying to resurrect her 2008 lawsuit seeking to throw out a controversial non-prosecution agreement protecting Epstein's alleged co-conspirators from criminal charges.
But the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals reluctantly rejected Wild's bid on legal grounds in a split decision, acknowledging the decision leaves Epstein's victims "emptyhanded."
While the prevailing side agreed Wild was deprived of the opportunity to speak with government prosecutors at the time of Epstein's criminal case, the panel found the US attorney didn't violate any laws set out in the Crimes Victims Right Act.
"Despite our sympathy for Ms. Wild and others like her, who suffered unspeakable horror at Epstein's hands, only to be left in the dark — and, so it seems, affirmatively misled — by government lawyers, we find ourselves constrained to deny her petition," the majority opinion read.
One of the three judges disagreed with the ruling and sided with Wild.
She filed suit along with others after the 66-year-old multi-millionaire was given a secret sweetheart plea deal without his victims knowing or having a say.
The agreement — which was hammered out with then-Southern District of Florida US Attorney Alexander Acosta — also included a non-prosecution agreement for Epstein's alleged accomplices, which victims didn't find out about until after the fact.
After Epstein committed suicide by hanging in a Lower Manhattan jail cell in August, a federal judge tossed Wild's case on the grounds that it was "moot."
Comment: Does anyone still believe Jeffrey Epstein killed himself?
"This is impossible to understand — the government intentionally misled the victims but found a way to get away with it by working with a child molester to get around the law," Wild said in a prepared statement following Tuesday's decision. "And the Judges ruled in their favor. How?"
Wild's lawyer Paul Cassell said they plan to ask the full Eleventh Circuit to review the decision especially in light of the one judge who sided with Wild.
A spokesperson from the office of the US Attorney in the Northern District of Georgia — which is repping the Florida US attorney's office in the appeals case — declined to comment.
Nowadays, in the name of ... whoever is the MSM's prole cause of the month/de jure, the same powers are trying to eradicate prior finality of judgments. (See, e.g., harrying of Bill Cosby.) This goes right to the wisdom of the Constitution's provisions against 'ex post facto laws ' or bills of attainder.
But they've got well over 90% on board with this approach. But when they come for folks and say: "Oh, you're accused of questioning the propriety of the lock down.' Your right to question that got thrown out in the ruling that allowed the illegally retroactive prosecution of Bill Cosby., so Come along, or get shot."