DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
672 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
672 KB
Summary
This legal document from July 27, 2023, argues that Ms. Maxwell has legal standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites precedent from the Second and Seventh Circuits to support the claim that the immunity granted in the NPA should prevent the United States from prosecuting her in the Southern District of New York. The document asserts that the District Court has already correctly found in Maxwell's favor on this point.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Subject of legal argument |
Referred to as 'Ms. Maxwell', the document argues she has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement as a third-...
|
| Andreas | Party in a cited case |
Mentioned in the case citation 'U.S. v. Andreas' as part of a legal precedent regarding third-party beneficiaries.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Justice Office of Professional Responsibility | Government agency |
Mentioned as 'OPR', which, along with the NPA, is said to establish the immunity given to Ms. Maxwell.
|
| United States | Government |
The prosecuting party that was allegedly precluded from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell.
|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The lower court that found Ms. Maxwell is a third-party beneficiary of the NPA.
|
| Seventh Circuit | Judicial body |
A U.S. Court of Appeals cited for its legal observations on plea agreements and third-party enforcement.
|
| Second Circuit | Judicial body |
Cited in 'F.2d 603 (2nd Cir. 1979)' for the proposition that there can be a third-party beneficiary of a plea bargain.
|
| Government | Government |
Mentioned in a footnote as failing to concede the Court's finding that Maxwell was a third-party beneficiary.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Argument presented that Ms. Maxwell has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary, which would preclude her prosecution by the United States.
Southern District of New York
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The location where the United States was allegedly precluded from prosecuting Ms. Maxwell.
|
Relationships (1)
The document describes the United States' prosecution of Ms. Maxwell and her legal defense based on an immunity agreement.
Key Quotes (3)
"when the original parties intended the contract to directly benefit them as third parties."Source
— Seventh Circuit
(A quote describing the condition under which third parties can enforce contracts like plea agreements.)
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
Quote #1
"[i]mmunity agreements"Source
— U.S. v. Andreas case
(Cited as a type of agreement to which third-party beneficiary standing applies.)
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
Quote #2
"plea bargains"Source
— U.S. v. Andreas case
(Cited as a type of agreement to which third-party beneficiary standing applies.)
DOJ-OGR-00021751.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document