DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
7
Organizations
2
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This legal document is a filing that refutes claims made by Maxwell regarding a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The filing argues that Maxwell's assertion of senior-level Justice Department approval for the NPA is a mischaracterization of the record, stating that any review by offices like the Deputy Attorney General's occurred only after the NPA was signed and in response to Epstein's actions, and did not constitute an approval of the agreement itself.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell | Defendant |
Mentioned throughout as the party attempting to show that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) applies to her.
|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to the NPA, his obligations under it, and his attempt to get out of it.
|
|
| Assistant Attorney General | Assistant Attorney General |
Provided a statement that she "did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed".
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| U.S. Attorney's office | government agency |
Mentioned as a potential prosecuting body.
|
| Main Justice | government agency |
A colloquial term for the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Justice. Maxwell claims its senior levels were invol...
|
| Office of the Deputy Attorney General | government agency |
Maxwell claimed approval of the NPA was obtained from this office. The document states it reviewed the NPA only after...
|
| Justice Department | government agency |
Its officials in Washington are mentioned as having refused to relieve Epstein of his obligations under the NPA.
|
| The Department | government agency |
Refers to the Justice Department, stating it only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction, not the NPA itself.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, mentioned as having enlisted assistance from other f...
|
| FBI | government agency |
The Federal Bureau of Investigation, mentioned as having enlisted assistance from other federal components in Florida.
|
Timeline (4 events)
The Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA after it was signed, when Epstein tried to get out of it.
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of Justice Department officials who refused to relieve Epstein of his obligations.
|
|
|
Location where the USAO-SDFL and the FBI enlisted assistance from other government components.
|
Key Quotes (6)
"‘global resolution’ and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted ‘by any other [U.S. Attorney’s] office in the country.’"Source
— Unknown (cited in document)
(Part of the argument being made in the legal document.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #1
"the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor."Source
— Russo, 801 F.2d at 626
(A legal citation used to support the argument that Maxwell is basing her claim on the NPA negotiations.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #2
"[s]enior levels of Main Justice were directly involved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA, even to the extent that separate presentations were made to, and approval of the NPA was obtained from, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General."Source
— Maxwell (from Br.36)
(Maxwell's claim about the involvement of senior Justice Department officials in the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #3
"The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it."Source
— A.143 (document citation)
(A statement from a report indicating the timing and reason for the review of the NPA by the Deputy Attorney General's office.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #4
"did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed"Source
— Assistant Attorney General
(A statement from the Assistant Attorney General clarifying she did not approve the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #5
"The Department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions."Source
— Unknown (from document citation 129)
(A statement clarifying the limited scope of the Justice Department's review concerning the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00021682.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,813 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 79, 06/29/2023, 3536060, Page35 of 93
22
‘global resolution’ and other co-conspirators could have
been prosecuted ‘by any other [U.S. Attorney’s] office
in the country.’")).
been prosecuted ‘by any other [U.S. Attorney’s] office
in the country.’")).
Lacking support in the text of the NPA itself, Max-
well attempts to show that the NPA applies here based
on “the negotiations between defendant and prosecu-
tor.” Russo, 801 F.2d at 626. In particular, Maxwell
claims that the negotiating history of the NPA shows
that “[s]enior levels of Main Justice were directly in-
volved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA,
even to the extent that separate presentations were
made to, and approval of the NPA was obtained from,
the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.” (Br.36).
This assertion, however, mischaracterizes the record
and further underscores the absence of any senior ap-
provals in negotiating the NPA. The pages to which
Maxwell cites describe activities after the NPA was
signed, in which Justice Department officials in Wash-
ington refused to relieve Epstein of his obligations un-
der the NPA. (Br.36 (citing SA120-23, 129-44); A.143
(“The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it
was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it.”)). Even
then, however, those officials did not “approve” the
NPA. (SA121 (statement by the Assistant Attorney
General that she “did not review or approve the agree-
ment either before or after it was signed”), 129 (“The
Department, however, only reviewed the issue of fed-
eral jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any
specific provisions.”)). Maxwell also cobbles together
instances in which the USAO-SDFL and the FBI in
Florida enlisted the assistance of other components of
the federal government or considered acting outside
well attempts to show that the NPA applies here based
on “the negotiations between defendant and prosecu-
tor.” Russo, 801 F.2d at 626. In particular, Maxwell
claims that the negotiating history of the NPA shows
that “[s]enior levels of Main Justice were directly in-
volved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA,
even to the extent that separate presentations were
made to, and approval of the NPA was obtained from,
the Office of the Deputy Attorney General.” (Br.36).
This assertion, however, mischaracterizes the record
and further underscores the absence of any senior ap-
provals in negotiating the NPA. The pages to which
Maxwell cites describe activities after the NPA was
signed, in which Justice Department officials in Wash-
ington refused to relieve Epstein of his obligations un-
der the NPA. (Br.36 (citing SA120-23, 129-44); A.143
(“The OPR report reflects that the Office of the Deputy
Attorney General reviewed the NPA, but only after it
was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it.”)). Even
then, however, those officials did not “approve” the
NPA. (SA121 (statement by the Assistant Attorney
General that she “did not review or approve the agree-
ment either before or after it was signed”), 129 (“The
Department, however, only reviewed the issue of fed-
eral jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any
specific provisions.”)). Maxwell also cobbles together
instances in which the USAO-SDFL and the FBI in
Florida enlisted the assistance of other components of
the federal government or considered acting outside
DOJ-OGR-00021682
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document