DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
588 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
588 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the Appellant, identified as Maxwell, is a third-party beneficiary of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) related to Epstein and therefore has standing to enforce it. The brief contends that a District Court erred in its ruling that the NPA's immunity for co-conspirators only applied to the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL), arguing the agreement's plain text referring to "the United States" should bind all U.S. Attorney's Offices, including the one in the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY).
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Appellant | Appellant |
The subject of the legal argument, who is argued to be a third-party beneficiary of the NPA and has standing to enfor...
|
| Andreas |
Mentioned in a case citation: U.S. v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir. 2000).
|
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned as the subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) that grants immunity to his potential co-conspirators.
|
|
| Maxwell |
Identified as being included in the definable class of Epstein's potential co-conspirators.
|
|
| Annabi |
Mentioned in a heading, likely referring to a legal case or precedent: "Annabi is not to the contrary".
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| District Court | Judicial body |
The lower court that declined to adopt the Government's arguments and rejected the Appellant's attempt to enforce the...
|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the U.S. Government, whose arguments the District Court declined to adopt.
|
| USAO-SDNY | Government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, which the document argues is bound by the ...
|
| USAO-SDFL | Government agency |
The United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which the District Court ruled was the only...
|
| USAOs | Government agency |
Plural for United States Attorney's Offices, mentioned in the context of the District Court's ruling that the NPA did...
|
| United States | Government |
Mentioned in the context of the NPA's reference to "the United States," which is central to the legal argument about ...
|
Timeline (1 events)
The District Court rejected the Appellant's attempt to enforce the NPA against the S2 Indictment, ruling that the NPA only bound the USAO-SDFL and not other U.S. Attorney's Offices.
District Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The scope of the NPA is debated based on its reference to "the United States".
|
Key Quotes (2)
"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals]."Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
(A quote from the NPA describing the scope of immunity it grants.)
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
Quote #1
"the United States"Source
— Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA)
(A quote from the NPA's co-conspirator provision. The interpretation of this phrase is the central point of legal contention discussed in the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00021078.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,329 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page31 of 113
B. Appellant may enforce the NPA as a third-party beneficiary.
Appellant is a third-party beneficiary of the NPA, and for that reason has standing to enforce it. The District Court declined to adopt the Government’s arguments to the contrary, and this Court should do the same. See U.S. v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir. 2000)
Here, the NPA grants immunity to “any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].” A178 (emphasis added). As the court recognized, this is a definable class that includes Maxwell. A144.
C. The “potential co-conspirators” provision binds the USAO-SDNY, and Annabi is not to the contrary
1. Introduction
The court rejected Appellant’s attempt to enforce the NPA against the S2 Indictment on only one ground: it found that the co-conspirator provision’s reference to “the United States” did not really mean the United States, but only the USAO-SDFL, and thus did not bind other USAOs. A189-192. But in ruling that the NPA did not mean what it said, the District Court ignored the plain text of the NPA, unsettled the parties’ objectively reasonable expectations, and misapplied Circuit precedent. What is more, the court abused its discretion by endorsing this
16
DOJ-OGR-00021078
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document