DOJ-OGR-00000252.tif

8
throughout its brief. What a prosecutor should have
done is not relevant; whether or not the Southern
District of Florida should have prohibited the
Southern District of New York from prosecuting
Ghislaine Maxwell, it clearly did so.
Nor can the government's appeal to context exclude
Petitioner from the clear “including but not limited to"
language which unmistakably signaled an intent to
cover all "potential coconspirators," not just those
who were specifically named. Indeed, the broad
"including but not limited to" clause shows the parties
contemplated both known and unknown accomplices,
and it was the government who drafted in the "final
broad language," intentionally declining to further
enumerate individuals. OPR:70,166. The purpose
was to assure Epstein that pleading guilty would
protect all his associates from federal prosecution
effectively "closing" the federal case completely. That
purpose is perfectly consistent with the plain text; it is
the government's after-the-fact spin that is inconsistent,
4 The government cherry picks snippets of testimony from
the OPR report, many of which are inconsistent with other
statements from the same government attorneys, or which offer
the perspective of those who admitted to unclear memories, or
who were on vacation or otherwise disengaged at the relevant
time. App.108, OPR: 36-37. There was a lengthy back-and-forth
negotiating process to the inclusion of this clause, some of it
recorded by the OPR report, some not. See OPR:36. None of this
is relevant; the document says what it says in plain language,
so the after-the-fact and self-serving statements of various
participants to the process should be ignored.
5 The OPR is riddled with statements reflecting that the
government was very concerned about the strength of its case,
that it had doubts it would result in a guilty verdict, and that
many of the alleged victims did not want any aspect of the case to
go to trial. See, e.g., OPR:28, 29, 36, 37, 14, 147.
DOJ-OGR-00000252