{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "document_number": "223",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "the government claims, it would not have precluded even the SDFL from bringing charges arising out of Accuser-2's allegations of conduct in the 1990s. The government cannot seriously make such an argument.\n\nEven the vague contours of the limitations on Epstein's immunity, however, are absent from the co-conspirator immunity provision. And while the government claims it would be “exceedingly strange” to interpret the co-conspirator immunity provision more broadly than Epstein's immunity provision (Opp. 16), as explained in Part II above, such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the government's focus on Epstein vis-à-vis potential co-conspirators. It would be “exceedingly strange,” however, for a federal prosecutor who intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific conduct or specific offenses to omit such limitations from the text of an immunity provision in a non-prosecution agreement.\n\nUnable to explain the absence of such limiting language, the government resorts to the reductio ad absurdum argument that unless the Court writes into the NPA the language the government now wishes had been included in 2007, Ms. Maxwell can claim that “she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States.” Opp. 3 (emphasis in original). Ms. Maxwell makes no such argument, and a faithful interpretation of the NPA leads to no such conclusion. Ms. Maxwell contends only that a provision that immunizes “potential co-conspirators of Epstein” precludes their prosecution for conduct allegedly done in conspiracy with Epstein—conduct that even the United States Attorney for this District has characterized as a “prequel” to offenses by Epstein that the NPA undisputedly immunizes. See, e.g., Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. “Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges.” NBC New York. July 3, 2020 (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislaine-",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the government claims, it would not have precluded even the SDFL from bringing charges arising out of Accuser-2's allegations of conduct in the 1990s. The government cannot seriously make such an argument.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even the vague contours of the limitations on Epstein's immunity, however, are absent from the co-conspirator immunity provision. And while the government claims it would be “exceedingly strange” to interpret the co-conspirator immunity provision more broadly than Epstein's immunity provision (Opp. 16), as explained in Part II above, such an interpretation is entirely consistent with the government's focus on Epstein vis-à-vis potential co-conspirators. It would be “exceedingly strange,” however, for a federal prosecutor who intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific conduct or specific offenses to omit such limitations from the text of an immunity provision in a non-prosecution agreement.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Unable to explain the absence of such limiting language, the government resorts to the reductio ad absurdum argument that unless the Court writes into the NPA the language the government now wishes had been included in 2007, Ms. Maxwell can claim that “she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States.” Opp. 3 (emphasis in original). Ms. Maxwell makes no such argument, and a faithful interpretation of the NPA leads to no such conclusion. Ms. Maxwell contends only that a provision that immunizes “potential co-conspirators of Epstein” precludes their prosecution for conduct allegedly done in conspiracy with Epstein—conduct that even the United States Attorney for this District has characterized as a “prequel” to offenses by Epstein that the NPA undisputedly immunizes. See, e.g., Dienst, J., Valiquette, J., Winter, T., and Fitzpatrick, S. “Jeffrey Epstein Confidante Ghislaine Maxwell Arrested on Sex Abuse Charges.” NBC New York. July 3, 2020 (https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/ghislaine-",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Dienst, J.",
      "Valiquette, J.",
      "Winter, T.",
      "Fitzpatrick, S.",
      "Accuser-2"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "NBC New York",
      "United States Attorney"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1990s",
      "2007",
      "July 3, 2020",
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "Opp. 16",
      "Opp. 3"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the interpretation of a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) and its implications for her immunity from prosecution."
}