{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "17",
    "document_number": "223",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 17 of 23\n\nThe other two documents remain unavailable to Ms. Maxwell—as, presumably, do other documents whose existence cannot be discovered in the public record. Nor has Ms. Maxwell had the opportunity to question those involved in the investigation and negotiation. It is patently unreasonable for the government to blame Ms. Maxwell for failing to produce evidence relating to the investigation and negotiation leading up to the NPA, while simultaneously opposing her request for discovery and cherry-picking its responses to the limited publicly available information she has been able to identify. That limited information has already yielded supportive documents and more will no doubt follow with further discovery.\n\nIII. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time Period or to Violations of Specific Statutes.\n\nThe government's argument that the co-conspirator immunity provision does not apply to the time period or the offenses charged in the Indictment consists of (i) asserting that the NPA says things it does not, in fact, say and (ii) attacking a strawman position, never asserted by Ms. Maxwell, that the NPA gives Ms. Maxwell carte blanche immunity from federal prosecution for all past and future criminal conduct of any kind, wherever and whenever committed. The co-conspirator immunity provision simply does not contain the limitations the government now seeks to attribute to it, and Ms. Maxwell's position that it prohibits the Mann Act charges against her is entirely reasonable.8\n\nFirst, the government's assertion that “the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement” is simply not true. See Opp. 15. The NPA contains only vague limitations as to the scope of Epstein's immunity, and no limitations whatsoever as to the scope of immunity for potential co-conspirators.\n\n8 To be clear, Ms. Maxwell does not assert that the NPA forecloses the perjury counts of the Indictment, which arise out of alleged post-NPA conduct.\n\n13\nDOJ-OGR-00003890",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 17 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The other two documents remain unavailable to Ms. Maxwell—as, presumably, do other documents whose existence cannot be discovered in the public record. Nor has Ms. Maxwell had the opportunity to question those involved in the investigation and negotiation. It is patently unreasonable for the government to blame Ms. Maxwell for failing to produce evidence relating to the investigation and negotiation leading up to the NPA, while simultaneously opposing her request for discovery and cherry-picking its responses to the limited publicly available information she has been able to identify. That limited information has already yielded supportive documents and more will no doubt follow with further discovery.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "III. The Co-Conspirator Immunity Provision Is Not Limited to the 2001-07 Time Period or to Violations of Specific Statutes.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's argument that the co-conspirator immunity provision does not apply to the time period or the offenses charged in the Indictment consists of (i) asserting that the NPA says things it does not, in fact, say and (ii) attacking a strawman position, never asserted by Ms. Maxwell, that the NPA gives Ms. Maxwell carte blanche immunity from federal prosecution for all past and future criminal conduct of any kind, wherever and whenever committed. The co-conspirator immunity provision simply does not contain the limitations the government now seeks to attribute to it, and Ms. Maxwell's position that it prohibits the Mann Act charges against her is entirely reasonable.8",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "First, the government's assertion that “the NPA contains detailed provisions that limit the scope of the crimes immunized in the agreement” is simply not true. See Opp. 15. The NPA contains only vague limitations as to the scope of Epstein's immunity, and no limitations whatsoever as to the scope of immunity for potential co-conspirators.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 To be clear, Ms. Maxwell does not assert that the NPA forecloses the perjury counts of the Indictment, which arise out of alleged post-NPA conduct.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "13",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003890",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "2001-07"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003890"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content discusses legal arguments and references specific documents and statutes."
}