DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
659 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
659 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as having failed to show she was an intended beneficiary of the NPA and therefore may not enforce it.
|
|
| R. Alexander Acosta | United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida |
The NPA agreement was signed on his authority.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to his plea in state court and the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc. | company |
Cited in the case United States v. Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc.
|
| Town of Ponce Inlet | government agency |
Cited in the case Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which was the sole party bound by the terms...
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation | government agency |
Mentioned as an entity that the USAO-SDFL promised would not institute a prosecution in the Southern District of Flor...
|
| U.S. Attorney’s Office | government agency |
Mentioned alongside the FBI as an entity that would not institute prosecution in the Southern District of Florida und...
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The jurisdiction where the NPA was applicable, as agreed by the USAO-SDFL.
|
|
|
Mentioned in the context of the Southern District of Florida.
|
Relationships (2)
The document states Maxwell is not named in the NPA's provision that names four potential co-conspirators, and she is attempting to enforce the NPA made with Epstein.
Acosta, as U.S. Attorney, signed the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein on behalf of the USAO-SDFL.
Key Quotes (4)
"a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party"Source
— Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet
(Quoted to establish the legal standard for a third party to enforce a contract.)
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
Quote #1
"on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida."Source
— The NPA document (cited as A.175)
(Describing how the Non-Prosecution Agreement was signed.)
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
Quote #2
"prosecution in this District"Source
— The NPA document (cited as A.175)
(Quoted to show the limited geographical scope of the agreement to the Southern District of Florida.)
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
Quote #3
"the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office . . . will be instituted in this District."Source
— The NPA document (cited as A.175)
(Detailing the promise made by the USAO-SDFL that no prosecution by these agencies would occur within the district.)
DOJ-OGR-00021678.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,653 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page31 of 93
18
party could enforce immunity agreement); see also United States v. Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1228 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (third party must show that “a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party” (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405 F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005))). Here, Maxwell has failed to make the requisite showing: she is not named in the provision naming four potential co-conspirator (A.178), and she has offered no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended to confer a benefit on her specifically. Accordingly, Maxwell may not enforce the NPA.
2. The NPA’s Terms Bind Only the USAO-SDFL
Even if Maxwell had a right to invoke the NPA’s protections, it would not bar the charges in this case. By its terms, the NPA only applies to prosecutions brought by the USAO-SDFL. The agreement was signed “on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida.” (A.175). And in exchange for Epstein’s plea in state court, the USAO-SDFL agreed to defer “prosecution in this District”—that is, the Southern District of Florida. (A.175). The USAO-SDFL further promised that no prosecution by “the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney’s Office . . . will be instituted in this District.” (A.175). An agreement by the USAO-SDFL not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida is an agreement intended to apply only to the USAO-SDFL and only in the Southern District of Florida. Moreover, the agreement was signed
DOJ-OGR-00021678
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document