{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-80736",
    "date": "07/13/2019",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736 Document 496-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2019 Page 10 of 20\nstatutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3283, 3299. Petitioners are free to contact the United States Attorney's Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys in those offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged federal crimes committed against them.9\nPetitioners nonetheless have appeared to contend throughout these proceedings that the many opportunities that they have been given to consult with the attorneys for the government about Epstein's offenses and the potential charges against Epstein - opportunities which continue to be available to Petitioners - are not meaningful under the CVRA due to the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. According to Petitioners, the Non-Prosecution Agreement has given Epstein a \"free pass\" on federal criminal charges for the offenses he committed against Petitioners and others. See, e.g., DE 9 at 15 (characterizing Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"a 'free pass' from the federal government\"), 2 (contending that the Non-Prosecution Agreement \"allowed [Epstein] . . . to escape all federal prosecution for dozens of serious federal sex offenses against minors\"), 7 (\"the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment\"), 12 (\"[T]he agreement prevents federal prosecution of the defendant for numerous sex offenses.\"); DE 77 at 2 (describing Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"an agreement that blocked federal prosecution of Epstein for the multitude of sex offenses he committed again [sic] the victims\"), 17 (\"The [Non-\n9 The USAO-SDFL has no present knowledge about whether the United States Attorney's Offices in those districts have opened any investigations into the allegations that have been made against Epstein, whether those offices are even aware of those allegations or the evidence supporting them, or what investigative or prosecutorial actions, if any, those offices might take in the future. Nonetheless, should any investigation be initiated involving such allegations, the evidence gathered in the Southern District of Florida could be disclosed to federal prosecutors and federal grand juries in New York or New Jersey. See\n9\nDOJ-OGR-0000314",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736 Document 496-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/13/2019 Page 10 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "statutes of limitations. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 3283, 3299. Petitioners are free to contact the United States Attorney's Office in those districts and seek to confer with government attorneys in those offices about investigating and potentially prosecuting Epstein based on the alleged federal crimes committed against them.9",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Petitioners nonetheless have appeared to contend throughout these proceedings that the many opportunities that they have been given to consult with the attorneys for the government about Epstein's offenses and the potential charges against Epstein - opportunities which continue to be available to Petitioners - are not meaningful under the CVRA due to the existence of the Non-Prosecution Agreement. According to Petitioners, the Non-Prosecution Agreement has given Epstein a \"free pass\" on federal criminal charges for the offenses he committed against Petitioners and others. See, e.g., DE 9 at 15 (characterizing Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"a 'free pass' from the federal government\"), 2 (contending that the Non-Prosecution Agreement \"allowed [Epstein] . . . to escape all federal prosecution for dozens of serious federal sex offenses against minors\"), 7 (\"the wealthy defendant has escaped all federal punishment\"), 12 (\"[T]he agreement prevents federal prosecution of the defendant for numerous sex offenses.\"); DE 77 at 2 (describing Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"an agreement that blocked federal prosecution of Epstein for the multitude of sex offenses he committed again [sic] the victims\"), 17 (\"The [Non-",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9 The USAO-SDFL has no present knowledge about whether the United States Attorney's Offices in those districts have opened any investigations into the allegations that have been made against Epstein, whether those offices are even aware of those allegations or the evidence supporting them, or what investigative or prosecutorial actions, if any, those offices might take in the future. Nonetheless, should any investigation be initiated involving such allegations, the evidence gathered in the Southern District of Florida could be disclosed to federal prosecutors and federal grand juries in New York or New Jersey. See",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "9",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-0000314",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York",
      "New Jersey",
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/13/2019"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-80736",
      "18 U.S.C. §§ 3283, 3299",
      "DE 9",
      "DE 77",
      "DOJ-OGR-0000314"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Epstein, discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement and its implications. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}