This document is page 46 of a court filing (Document 204) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments refuting the defendant's claim that she has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites previous case law to argue that third-party standing principles from contract law do not necessarily apply to plea agreements.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Defendant | Defendant |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE); arguing she has standing to enforce the NPA.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Florida West Int’l Airways, Inc. |
Cited in case law United States v. Florida West Int’l Airways, Inc.
|
|
| CFW Const. Co. |
Cited in case law United States v. CFW Const. Co.
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002980
|
"third-party beneficiaries have no contractual right to enforce plea agreements."Source
"the defendant has failed to establish that she is a third party beneficiary of the NPA."Source
"In order to establish that she has enforceable rights under the NPA, the defendant must show that"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (2,246 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document