DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
780 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (memorandum of law)
File Size:
780 KB
Summary
This document is page 47 of a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (2021). It argues that the 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) was not intended to protect Maxwell. Citing an OPR report and an interview with former prosecutor Maria Villafaña, the text states that while prosecutors knew of a 'socialite' friend of Epstein (Maxwell), they had no evidence against her in 2007 and intended the immunity provision to apply only to four specific female assistants.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant |
Subject of the legal argument regarding third-party beneficiary status in the NPA. Referred to as 'her', 'the defenda...
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Co-conspirator (deceased) |
Mentioned in relation to the NPA and his 'longtime relationship' with Maxwell.
|
| Maria Villafaña | USAO-SDFL Prosecutor |
Lead prosecutor on the 2007 case; interviewed by OPR regarding the intent of the NPA language.
|
| Four female assistants | Epstein Employees |
Identified by Villafaña as the only intended beneficiaries of the 'co-conspirator' provision in the NPA.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| OPR |
Office of Professional Responsibility; conducted an investigation and issued a report on the NPA negotiations.
|
|
| USAO-SDFL |
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida; prosecuted the 2007 case.
|
|
| 11th Cir. |
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (cited in legal precedent).
|
Timeline (2 events)
Unknown (prior to 2021)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the USAO handling the 2007 case.
|
Relationships (2)
Described as a 'longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite'.
Exchanged drafts of the NPA and plea agreement.
Key Quotes (5)
"the defendant has offered no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on her in particular"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
Quote #1
"OPR found little in the contemporaneous records mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects discussed or debated it"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
Quote #2
"Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein’s longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-known socialite"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
Quote #3
"in 2007, they 'didn’t have any specific evidence against her.'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
Quote #4
"Villafaña believed that the only 'co-conspirators' of Epstein who would benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified by name."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002981.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,324 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 47 of 239
“a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party.”
Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405
F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, “the intent of the parties is the key” to evaluating
whether an individual is a third party beneficiary. Id.
Fla. W. Int’l Airways, Inc., 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (quoting Bochese v. Town of Ponce Inlet, 405
F.3d 964, 982 (11th Cir. 2005)). In other words, “the intent of the parties is the key” to evaluating
whether an individual is a third party beneficiary. Id.
Here, the defendant has offered no evidence that the parties intended to confer a benefit on
her in particular, or that her crimes in the 1990s make her a member of the class of “co-
conspirators” the parties had in mind when they negotiated the NPA. To the contrary, the OPR’s
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this provision in the NPA strongly
undercuts any such argument, and OPR’s findings demonstrate that the parties did not intend to
confer a benefit on the defendant. With respect to the “co-conspirator” provision, the OPR Report
concluded, in relevant part:
her in particular, or that her crimes in the 1990s make her a member of the class of “co-
conspirators” the parties had in mind when they negotiated the NPA. To the contrary, the OPR’s
investigation of the circumstances surrounding the inclusion of this provision in the NPA strongly
undercuts any such argument, and OPR’s findings demonstrate that the parties did not intend to
confer a benefit on the defendant. With respect to the “co-conspirator” provision, the OPR Report
concluded, in relevant part:
Other than various drafts of the NPA and of a federal plea
agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records
mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects
discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration. Drafts
of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final
broad language promising not to prosecute “any potential co-
conspirators of Epstein” evolved from a more narrow provision
sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL
prosecutor Maria] Villafaña and defense counsel exchanged drafts
of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA,
with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within
the USAO about the Provision.
agreement, OPR found little in the contemporaneous records
mentioning the provision and nothing indicating that the subjects
discussed or debated it—or even gave it much consideration. Drafts
of the NPA and of the federal plea agreement show that the final
broad language promising not to prosecute “any potential co-
conspirators of Epstein” evolved from a more narrow provision
sought by the defense. The provision expanded as [USAO-SDFL
prosecutor Maria] Villafaña and defense counsel exchanged drafts
of, first, a proposed federal plea agreement and, then, of the NPA,
with apparently little analysis and no substantive discussion within
the USAO about the Provision.
OPR Report at 166. With respect to Maxwell in particular, OPR interviewed Maria Villafaña, the
lead prosecutor on the case, and noted:
lead prosecutor on the case, and noted:
Villafaña acknowledged that investigators were aware of Epstein’s
longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-
known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they “didn’t
have any specific evidence against her.” Accordingly, Villafaña
believed that the only “co-conspirators” of Epstein who would
benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified
by name.
longtime relationship with a close female friend who was a well-
known socialite, but, according to Villafaña, in 2007, they “didn’t
have any specific evidence against her.” Accordingly, Villafaña
believed that the only “co-conspirators” of Epstein who would
benefit from the provision were the four female assistants identified
by name.
20
DOJ-OGR-00002981
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document