Relationship Details

This page from a legal filing argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited in scope to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the agreement's text, the negotiation history, and the U.S. Attorney's Manual to support the claim that the NPA was not intended to bind other districts from prosecuting Epstein.

This legal document argues that Ghislaine Maxwell cannot enforce the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made with Jeffrey Epstein. The reasoning is twofold: first, Maxwell was not named as an intended third-party beneficiary of the agreement, and second, the NPA's terms are explicitly limited to prosecutions brought by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) within that specific district, and therefore do not bar the current charges against her.

This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein was strictly limited to the Southern District of Florida. It cites the United States Attorney's Manual and the specific language of the agreement, authorized by U.S. Attorney R. Alexander Acosta, to demonstrate that there was no intention to bind other federal districts from prosecuting Epstein. The document emphasizes that the agreement's scope is explicitly confined to 'this District' and defers to prosecution by the State of Florida.