{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "30",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 239\nillegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.1\n\nARGUMENT\n\nI. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case\n\nThe defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the \"USAO-SDFL\"). (Def. Mot. 1). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and her name is not contained anywhere in the document; and (2) her crimes are not identified or named in any way in the NPA. Essentially, the defendant claims she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States, based on the language of a document that does not name her and which she did not sign. Moreover, she seeks to enforce the NPA against a U.S. Attorney's Office that did not negotiate the NPA and is not bound by it.\n\nThe defendant's arguments are meritless, and the Court should reject them. As a threshold matter, under the well-settled law of this Circuit, the NPA is not enforceable in this District, because the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Jeffrey Epstein is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the \"USAO-SDNY\"). Moreover, even if the NPA applied to this District—which it does not—the NPA does not immunize the defendant from prosecution for the crimes charged in the Indictment. Finally, because the defendant has failed to\n\n1 As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial. The Government does not anticipate that any new charges would require the production of any additional discovery.\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00002964",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 30 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "illegal sex acts, and aiding and abetting the same, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2423 and 2. Counts Five and Six charge the defendant with perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623.1",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "ARGUMENT",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement Is Irrelevant to This Case",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant seeks to dismiss the Indictment based on a 2007 non-prosecution agreement (\"NPA\") between Jeffrey Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (the \"USAO-SDFL\"). (Def. Mot. 1). She does so despite the fact that: (1) she did not negotiate the NPA, was not a party to the NPA, and her name is not contained anywhere in the document; and (2) her crimes are not identified or named in any way in the NPA. Essentially, the defendant claims she is immune from prosecution for any federal crime, during any time period, anywhere, in the United States, based on the language of a document that does not name her and which she did not sign. Moreover, she seeks to enforce the NPA against a U.S. Attorney's Office that did not negotiate the NPA and is not bound by it.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant's arguments are meritless, and the Court should reject them. As a threshold matter, under the well-settled law of this Circuit, the NPA is not enforceable in this District, because the USAO-SDFL's agreement with Jeffrey Epstein is not binding on the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York (the \"USAO-SDNY\"). Moreover, even if the NPA applied to this District—which it does not—the NPA does not immunize the defendant from prosecution for the crimes charged in the Indictment. Finally, because the defendant has failed to",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 As the Government has repeatedly indicated, the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's co-conspirators remains ongoing. (See, e.g., Gov't Letter dated Aug. 21, 2020, Dkt. No. 46; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 6, 2020, Dkt. No. 60; Gov't Letter dated Oct. 20, 2020, Dkt. No. 65). To the extent that investigation results in additional charges against the defendant, the Government intends to seek any superseding indictment at least three months in advance of trial. The Government does not anticipate that any new charges would require the production of any additional discovery.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002964",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "New York",
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2007",
      "Aug. 21, 2020",
      "Oct. 6, 2020",
      "Oct. 20, 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Dkt. No. 46",
      "Dkt. No. 60",
      "Dkt. No. 65"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and the defendant. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 30 of 239."
}