Relationship Details

This legal document is a court opinion regarding Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal. Maxwell argued that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) immunized her from prosecution. The court rejected her argument, holding that the NPA made with the USAO-SDFL does not legally bind the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (USAO-SDNY) from prosecuting her.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) is not enforceable in the Southern District of New York. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit to support the position that plea agreements are binding only in the district where they are made, unless explicitly stated otherwise. The document concludes that the defendant has failed to provide evidence that the USAO-SDFL's NPA with Epstein was intended to bind other districts.

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.