{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 23",
    "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 20 of 23\nmaxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/). Such an interpretation, rather than an insertion into the co-conspirator immunity provision of arbitrary limitations designed to satisfy the government's interests here, is the \"common-sense way to read the NPA\" that the Court should adopt. See Opp. 16.\nIV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent.\nFor the reasons explained above, Counts One through Four have been brought in breach of the NPA and should be dismissed. The text of the NPA, read as a whole, unambiguously bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution here, and the government is reduced to arguing that the parties must have meant to write various provisions of the NPA differently than they actually did. These arguments are manifestly inadequate, and they should be rejected.\nShould the Court have any doubt about the parties' intent, however, discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent are warranted. The government's arguments regarding the parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the presentation of evidence. For example, to the extent that the scope of offenses for which the NPA immunized Epstein is deemed relevant to the co-conspirator immunity provision, that scope cannot be delineated without determining precisely which offenses might have arisen out of the investigation by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL (including the investigation into \"Epstein's background\"), as well as which offenses arose out of the undefined \"Federal Grand Jury investigation.\" Similarly, the government's claims that the parties did not intend to confer the benefit of immunity on Ms. Maxwell, and that the parties intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL, raise issues regarding the scope of the SDFL investigation, the USAO-SDFL's awareness of Ms. Maxwell, and the extent to which the investigation involved this District. These issues\n16\nDOJ-OGR-00003893",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 20 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "maxwell-arrested-jeffrey-epstein-aide/2495762/). Such an interpretation, rather than an insertion into the co-conspirator immunity provision of arbitrary limitations designed to satisfy the government's interests here, is the \"common-sense way to read the NPA\" that the Court should adopt. See Opp. 16.\nIV. In the Alternative, the Court Should Conduct Discovery and an Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Parties' Intent.\nFor the reasons explained above, Counts One through Four have been brought in breach of the NPA and should be dismissed. The text of the NPA, read as a whole, unambiguously bars Ms. Maxwell's prosecution here, and the government is reduced to arguing that the parties must have meant to write various provisions of the NPA differently than they actually did. These arguments are manifestly inadequate, and they should be rejected.\nShould the Court have any doubt about the parties' intent, however, discovery and an evidentiary hearing regarding the parties' intent are warranted. The government's arguments regarding the parties' intent simply cannot be credited without the presentation of evidence. For example, to the extent that the scope of offenses for which the NPA immunized Epstein is deemed relevant to the co-conspirator immunity provision, that scope cannot be delineated without determining precisely which offenses might have arisen out of the investigation by the FBI and the USAO-SDFL (including the investigation into \"Epstein's background\"), as well as which offenses arose out of the undefined \"Federal Grand Jury investigation.\" Similarly, the government's claims that the parties did not intend to confer the benefit of immunity on Ms. Maxwell, and that the parties intended to limit the co-conspirator immunity provision to the SDFL, raise issues regarding the scope of the SDFL investigation, the USAO-SDFL's awareness of Ms. Maxwell, and the extent to which the investigation involved this District. These issues",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003893",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "this District"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003893"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with references to Epstein and various legal and investigative entities. The text is primarily printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) and involves discussions about the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications."
}