{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "22",
    "date": "07/13/20",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 22 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 19\nevidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.1\nThe defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (\"SDFL\") is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (\"A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\"); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the \"Government.\" Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672.\nThird, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment\n1 Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\"FBI\") and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger.\n5\nDOJ-OGR-00001616",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 22 Filed 07/13/20 Page 6 of 19",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidence and witness testimony, will conclusively establish that the defendant groomed the victims for sexual abuse by Jeffrey Epstein.1\nThe defendant's motion alludes to defenses in this case, all of which are legal or procedural in nature, and none of which pass muster, let alone counsel in favor of bail. To begin with, the notion that the defendant is protected from prosecution by the Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida (\"SDFL\") is absurd. That agreement affords her no protection in this District, for at least three reasons. First, the defendant was not a party to that agreement nor named in it as a third-party beneficiary, and the defendant offers no basis to think she would have standing to claim any rights under the NPA. Tellingly, the defendant cites no authority for the proposition that an agreement she was not a party to and that does not even identify her by name could possibly be invoked to bar her prosecution. Second, and equally important, the NPA does not bind the Southern District of New York, which was not a party to the agreement. See United States v. Annabi, 771 F.2d 670, 672 (2d Cir. 1985) (per curiam) (\"A plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction.\"); United States v. Prisco, 391 F. App'x 920, 921 (2d Cir. 2010). This rule applies even when the text of the agreement refers to the signing party as the \"Government.\" Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672.\nThird, and perhaps most important, even assuming the NPA could be read to protect this defendant and bind this Office, which are both legally unsound propositions, the Indictment",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Additionally, and beyond the strong evidence set forth in the Indictment, in just the past week, and in response to the charges against the defendant being made public, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (\"FBI\") and the U.S. Attorney's Office have been in touch with additional individuals who have expressed a willingness to provide information regarding the defendant. The Government is in the process of receiving and reviewing this additional evidence, which has the potential to make the Government's case even stronger.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001616",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/13/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 22",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001616"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant. The text discusses the defendant's motion and the government's response, citing relevant case law and statutes. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}