DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
745 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
3
Organizations
3
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal memorandum
File Size:
745 KB
Summary
This document is page 46 of a court filing (Document 204) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments refuting the defendant's claim that she has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites previous case law to argue that third-party standing principles from contract law do not necessarily apply to plea agreements.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); arguing she has standing to enforce the NPA.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Florida West Int’l Airways, Inc. |
Cited in case law United States v. Florida West Int’l Airways, Inc.
|
|
| CFW Const. Co. |
Cited in case law United States v. CFW Const. Co.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002980
|
Timeline (1 events)
Relationships (1)
defendant relies upon three district court decisions... to enforce the NPA
Key Quotes (3)
"third-party beneficiaries have no contractual right to enforce plea agreements."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
Quote #1
"the defendant has failed to establish that she is a third party beneficiary of the NPA."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
Quote #2
"In order to establish that she has enforceable rights under the NPA, the defendant must show that"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document