{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 23\n\nMs. Maxwell thus need not show that the parties to the NPA were thinking of her \"in particular\"; rather, it is sufficient that she falls within the class of individuals the parties to the NPA intended to benefit. See, e.g., Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (\"the signatory parties unmistakably intended to confer immunity on a discrete class of corporations and individuals . . . that could include the Defendants\"). And that class is clear from the face of the NPA: \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,\" i.e., anyone else who might be prosecuted in connection with Epstein's conduct. NPA at 5.\n\nAlthough the NPA expressly provides that that class is \"including but not limited to\" the four individuals named in the co-conspirator immunity provision (NPA at 5), the government asks the Court to disregard this plain language and instead credit a passage from the report of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (\"OPR Report\"2) stating that the line prosecutor who negotiated the NPA \"believed\" that only the four individuals expressly named in the co-conspirator immunity provision \"would benefit.\" Opp. 20-21 (quoting OPR Report at 167). Regardless of the truth of this decade-after-the-fact and self-serving \"belief,\" it is immaterial. By agreeing to immunize \"potential\" co-conspirators \"including but not limited to\" the four named individuals, the government explicitly agreed that the NPA would apply to any others who might be charged as co-conspirators in the future—a class that includes Ms. Maxwell.\n\nThe OPR Report itself re-affirms the intent to extend immunity beyond those already identified as potential co-conspirators. In reviewing the negotiating history of the parties over this provision, the OPR Report notes that the government had not specifically contemplated other potential co-conspirators, yet it also demonstrates that the Epstein defense lawyers consistently\n\n2 The OPR Report, of which only the executive summary had been released previously, has been submitted as Exhibit 3 to the government's opposition.\n\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00003881",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 8 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell thus need not show that the parties to the NPA were thinking of her \"in particular\"; rather, it is sufficient that she falls within the class of individuals the parties to the NPA intended to benefit. See, e.g., Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228 (\"the signatory parties unmistakably intended to confer immunity on a discrete class of corporations and individuals . . . that could include the Defendants\"). And that class is clear from the face of the NPA: \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein,\" i.e., anyone else who might be prosecuted in connection with Epstein's conduct. NPA at 5.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although the NPA expressly provides that that class is \"including but not limited to\" the four individuals named in the co-conspirator immunity provision (NPA at 5), the government asks the Court to disregard this plain language and instead credit a passage from the report of the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (\"OPR Report\"2) stating that the line prosecutor who negotiated the NPA \"believed\" that only the four individuals expressly named in the co-conspirator immunity provision \"would benefit.\" Opp. 20-21 (quoting OPR Report at 167). Regardless of the truth of this decade-after-the-fact and self-serving \"belief,\" it is immaterial. By agreeing to immunize \"potential\" co-conspirators \"including but not limited to\" the four named individuals, the government explicitly agreed that the NPA would apply to any others who might be charged as co-conspirators in the future—a class that includes Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The OPR Report itself re-affirms the intent to extend immunity beyond those already identified as potential co-conspirators. In reviewing the negotiating history of the parties over this provision, the OPR Report notes that the government had not specifically contemplated other potential co-conspirators, yet it also demonstrates that the Epstein defense lawyers consistently",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The OPR Report, of which only the executive summary had been released previously, has been submitted as Exhibit 3 to the government's opposition.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003881",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003881"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications for her case. The document includes references to other legal documents and reports, such as the OPR Report."
}