{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "32 of 38",
    "document_number": "142",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 32 of 38\n\nAttorney's Office.\" NPA at 2. The latter investigation, in turn, encompasses not only \"offenses\" from the 2001-07 time period, but also \"Epstein's background.\" Id. at 1. Thus, for example, prosecution of Epstein for a pre-2001 offense that arose out of the FBI/USAO investigation into Epstein's background, or for an unlisted statutory offense that arose from the grand jury investigation, would have been prohibited under the NPA.\n\nThe co-conspirator immunity provision does not include even those broad limitations. It provides, simply, that the United States will not \"institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\" Id. at 5 (emphasis added). The provision could not be clearer, either on its face or in the context of the NPA as a whole. As with the absence of language limiting the provision to prosecution in the SDFL, the absence of any language limiting the offenses for which potential co-conspirators cannot be prosecuted, when such language is included as to Epstein, must be presumed under contract interpretation principles to have been intentional. See, e.g., LaSalle Bank, 424 F.3d at 206; Port Consol., 826 F. App'x at 827-28. At minimum, the silence as to time period and covered conduct is an ambiguity and therefore should be resolved against the government. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 269.\n\nEven if the NPA were construed as placing some limitation on co-conspirator immunity, no rational limitation could exclude the conduct alleged here. The charges against Ms. Maxwell involve her alleged role as a co-conspirator of Epstein, involving alleged conduct almost identical to the alleged conduct that led up to the NPA. Indeed, the United States Attorney for this District, in announcing the current indictment, described it as \"the prequel to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein.\" 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-",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 32 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Attorney's Office.\" NPA at 2. The latter investigation, in turn, encompasses not only \"offenses\" from the 2001-07 time period, but also \"Epstein's background.\" Id. at 1. Thus, for example, prosecution of Epstein for a pre-2001 offense that arose out of the FBI/USAO investigation into Epstein's background, or for an unlisted statutory offense that arose from the grand jury investigation, would have been prohibited under the NPA.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The co-conspirator immunity provision does not include even those broad limitations. It provides, simply, that the United States will not \"institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\" Id. at 5 (emphasis added). The provision could not be clearer, either on its face or in the context of the NPA as a whole. As with the absence of language limiting the provision to prosecution in the SDFL, the absence of any language limiting the offenses for which potential co-conspirators cannot be prosecuted, when such language is included as to Epstein, must be presumed under contract interpretation principles to have been intentional. See, e.g., LaSalle Bank, 424 F.3d at 206; Port Consol., 826 F. App'x at 827-28. At minimum, the silence as to time period and covered conduct is an ambiguity and therefore should be resolved against the government. Gonzalez, 93 F. App'x at 269.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Even if the NPA were construed as placing some limitation on co-conspirator immunity, no rational limitation could exclude the conduct alleged here. The charges against Ms. Maxwell involve her alleged role as a co-conspirator of Epstein, involving alleged conduct almost identical to the alleged conduct that led up to the NPA. Indeed, the United States Attorney for this District, in announcing the current indictment, described it as \"the prequel to the earlier case we brought against Jeffrey Epstein.\" 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-",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002604",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Dienst, J.",
      "Valiquette, J.",
      "Winter, T.",
      "Fitzpatrick, S."
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "USAO",
      "NBC New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "SDFL"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2001-07",
      "July 3, 2020",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 142"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein and its implications for co-conspirators."
}