DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
733 KB
Extraction Summary
1
People
6
Organizations
3
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
733 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida (SDFL). It cites a 2013 brief from the USAO-SDFL, an OPR Report, and Department of Justice guidelines to establish that the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to, and did not intend to, prevent Epstein's prosecution in any other federal district. The central theme is that the NPA was not a 'global resolution' and did not provide nationwide immunity.
People (1)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Subject of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) who sought to avoid complying with it and was the subject of potential p...
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR | government agency |
Referenced via the 'OPR Report', which investigated aspects of the Epstein case.
|
| Main Justice | government agency |
A colloquial term for the central leadership of the Department of Justice, to whom Epstein's attorneys appealed. The ...
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, the office that entered into the Non-Prosecutio...
|
| United States | government |
Party to the Non-Prosecution Agreement, mentioned as not being barred from bringing federal criminal charges against ...
|
| Department of Justice | government agency |
Mentioned as providing guidelines that limited the authority of the USAO-SDFL.
|
| U.S. Attorney's office | government agency |
Mentioned in a quote regarding the possibility of prosecuting co-conspirators in other districts.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Epstein's attorneys appealed to Main Justice in an unsuccessful attempt to void the Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
The specific jurisdiction where the Non-Prosecution Agreement obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein.
|
|
|
Used to describe the scope outside of the Southern District of Florida where the NPA did not bar prosecution.
|
|
|
Used to describe the scope of potential prosecution for co-conspirators and the geographical limit of the USAO-SDFL's...
|
Relationships (2)
The USAO-SDFL and Epstein were parties to a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). The document details the USAO-SDFL's interpretation of the agreement's limitations.
The USAO-SDFL is a district office operating under the authority and guidelines of the main Department of Justice (Main Justice), as evidenced by the citation of the United States Attorney's Manual which restricts the USAO-SDFL's authority.
Key Quotes (3)
"[T]he Non-Prosecution agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement in any other district in the nation. Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any district for offenses not identified in the agreement."Source
— USAO-SDFL
(Quoted from a July 5, 2013 brief filed by the USAO-SDFL in a civil case, explaining the limited scope of the NPA.)
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
Quote #1
"pointed out that the NPA was not a ‘global resolution’ and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted ‘by any other [U.S. Attorney’s] office in the country.’"Source
— a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL
(An observation from the OPR Report, indicating the internal understanding at the USAO-SDFL that the agreement was not nationwide.)
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
Quote #2
"No district or division shall make any agreement,"Source
— United States Attorney’s Manual
(A quote from a governing provision showing that the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to unilaterally bar prosecution in other districts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002974.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,154 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 40 of 239
OPR Report at 95. The OPR Report further notes that, thereafter, Epstein sought to avoid complying with the NPA entirely, and his attorneys appealed to Main Justice in the hopes of voiding the agreement. OPR Report at 94-108. That appeal was not successful. Id. In any event, the involvement of Main Justice alone would not begin to establish the very different proposition that Main Justice viewed the NPA as binding any district other than USAO-SDFL, let alone specifically considered and approved such an outcome, or communicated such a promise to Epstein.
Further still, the record in the civil case makes clear that the USAO-SDFL’s position was that the NPA did not bind other districts. In a July 5, 2013 brief, the USAO-SDFL stated:
[T]he Non-Prosecution agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement. The Non-Prosecution Agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution Agreement in any other district in the nation. Neither does the Non-Prosecution Agreement bar prosecution in any district for offenses not identified in the agreement.
Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 10-11 (S.D. Fla.) (emphasis in original); see also OPR Report at 81, n.125 (observing that a supervisor at the USAO-SDFL “pointed out that the NPA was not a ‘global resolution’ and other co-conspirators could have been prosecuted ‘by any other [U.S. Attorney’s] office in the country.’”).
As the USAO-SDFL has explained, the NPA did not bind other districts, and could not.
That is because the USAO-SDFL lacked the authority to do so under applicable Department of Justice guidelines:
Significantly, under the governing provision of the United States Attorney’s Manual, the USAO-SDFL did not have the authority to unilaterally bar Epstein’s prosecution in any other district in the country: ‘No district or division shall make any agreement,
13
DOJ-OGR-00002974
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document