DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
694 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
8
Organizations
2
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
694 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, dated Feb 28, 2023) arguing that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein should be interpreted under Eleventh Circuit law rather than Second Circuit law. The text asserts that under Eleventh Circuit precedent, the NPA's promise by 'the United States' not to prosecute Epstein's potential co-conspirators (specifically including the Defendant) is binding on all U.S. Attorneys' Offices and any ambiguity must be resolved against the government.
Organizations (8)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States |
The Government; party to the NPA.
|
|
| USAOs |
United States Attorneys' Offices; argument concerns whether the NPA binds all USAOs.
|
|
| Second Circuit |
Court of Appeals; jurisdiction discussed regarding choice of law.
|
|
| Eleventh Circuit |
Court of Appeals; jurisdiction whose laws the document argues should apply to the NPA.
|
|
| U.S. Tax Ct. |
Cited in case law.
|
|
| Shaheen Bus. & Inv. Grp., Inc. |
Cited in case law.
|
|
| John Wiley & Sons, Inc. |
Cited in case law.
|
|
| DRK Photo |
Cited in case law.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in legal citation and regarding contract law defaults.
|
|
|
Mentioned regarding conflict of laws.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Here, it is clear that the Second Circuit is not the jurisdiction with the most significant relationship to the NPA, and the Government has not argued otherwise."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
Quote #1
"Instead, the court should have construed the NPA under Eleventh Circuit law."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
Quote #2
"The Eleventh Circuit would hold that the NPA’s promise on behalf of “the United States” not to prosecute Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators” (including Defendant) is binding on other USAOs."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
Quote #3
"the ambiguity “must be read against the government.”"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021089.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,666 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page42 of 113
(U.S. Tax Ct. Mar. 13, 2014) (same); U.S. v. Oruche, 257 F.Supp.2d 230, 239 n.7
(D.D.C. 2003) (same, for federal immunity agreement); see also Samra v. Shaheen
Bus. & Inv. Grp., Inc., 355 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.D.C. 2005) (emphasizing that, in
“constru[ing] an immunity agreement executed during a criminal prosecution, our
court [does] not simply adopt the contract law of the District of Columbia as a
default,” but will instead follow “choice of law rules”). “The Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws, to which both New York and the federal courts look,
declares that courts will apply the laws of the state that ‘has the most significant
relationship to the transaction and the parties.’” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK
Photo, 882 F.3d 394, 412 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Restatement § 188). Here, it is
clear that the Second Circuit is not the jurisdiction with the most significant
relationship to the NPA, and the Government has not argued otherwise. Instead,
the court should have construed the NPA under Eleventh Circuit law.
(D.D.C. 2003) (same, for federal immunity agreement); see also Samra v. Shaheen
Bus. & Inv. Grp., Inc., 355 F.Supp.2d 483 (D.D.C. 2005) (emphasizing that, in
“constru[ing] an immunity agreement executed during a criminal prosecution, our
court [does] not simply adopt the contract law of the District of Columbia as a
default,” but will instead follow “choice of law rules”). “The Restatement
(Second) of Conflict of Laws, to which both New York and the federal courts look,
declares that courts will apply the laws of the state that ‘has the most significant
relationship to the transaction and the parties.’” John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v. DRK
Photo, 882 F.3d 394, 412 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Restatement § 188). Here, it is
clear that the Second Circuit is not the jurisdiction with the most significant
relationship to the NPA, and the Government has not argued otherwise. Instead,
the court should have construed the NPA under Eleventh Circuit law.
The Eleventh Circuit would hold that the NPA’s promise on behalf of “the
United States” not to prosecute Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators” (including
Defendant) is binding on other USAOs. That is because, under Eleventh Circuit
precedent, even if the reference to “the United States” were deemed ambiguous,
the ambiguity “must be read against the government.” U.S. v. Jefferies, 908
F.2d 1520, 1523 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200, 1203 (11th
Cir. 1986)); see also Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 526 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982). And
United States” not to prosecute Epstein’s “potential co-conspirators” (including
Defendant) is binding on other USAOs. That is because, under Eleventh Circuit
precedent, even if the reference to “the United States” were deemed ambiguous,
the ambiguity “must be read against the government.” U.S. v. Jefferies, 908
F.2d 1520, 1523 (11th Cir. 1990) (citing In re Arnett, 804 F.2d 1200, 1203 (11th
Cir. 1986)); see also Rowe v. Griffin, 676 F.2d 524, 526 n.4 (11th Cir. 1982). And
27
DOJ-OGR-00021089
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document