DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
624 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
4
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
624 KB
Summary
This document is page 27 of a legal filing (dated June 29, 2023) in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It argues that the District Court (Judge Nathan) correctly denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss without a hearing because the terms of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida were clear and did not bar Maxwell's prosecution. A footnote clarifies that even if the NPA applied, it would only cover specific counts (Count Six) and not others (Counts Three and Four) involving different victims and time periods.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Argues the District Court erred by denying motions to dismiss; claims protection under Epstein's NPA.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Deceased/Co-conspirator |
Mentioned regarding his Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with USAO-SDFL.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
District Court judge who denied Maxwell's motions to dismiss and declined an evidentiary hearing.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; party to Epstein's NPA.
|
|
| District Court |
The lower court that denied the motions.
|
|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; produced a report on the NPA's negotiation history.
|
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Offices |
Federal prosecutorial offices generally.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (Past)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction where Epstein's NPA was signed (implied by USAO-SDFL).
|
Relationships (2)
Reference to the 'co-conspirator provision' in the NPA and Maxwell's attempt to use Epstein's NPA for immunity.
Discussion of whether USAO-SDFL immunized Maxwell via Epstein's NPA.
Key Quotes (4)
"Thus, Epstein’s NPA with the USAO-SDFL does not bar this prosecution of Maxwell, and Judge Nathan correctly denied the motions to dismiss."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
Quote #1
"the cases cited by Maxwell in support of her request for a hearing “mostly involved oral agreements where there was no written record of the full set of terms reached by the parties,”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
Quote #2
"This is no such case. The NPA’s terms are clear."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
Quote #3
"Maxwell’s suggestion that the co-conspirator provision “is not limited to any particular offense or any time period” (Br.40) is based on the premise that the USAO-SDFL immunized Maxwell for any and all crimes, past or future"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021687.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document