{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "223",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "Memorandum",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 23\n\nGhislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"Motion\").\n\nAs though it were wielding an invisible ink pen, the government adds language to its Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") with Jeffrey Epstein that does not exist in the text, and then pretends no one can see the clear, unambiguous language that does appear there. The plain language of the NPA states, without limitation, that \"the United States . . . will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\" Because the Superseding Indictment (\"Indictment\") contends that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator of Epstein, the NPA, on its face, applies here. Thus, the government's only argument, which it makes throughout its opposition, is that the NPA means something other than what it says.\n\nIn suggesting that the parties to the NPA intended to immunize only the four individuals specifically named in the co-conspirator immunity provision, the government flagrantly ignores the express statement that immunity is \"not limited to\" those individuals. In arguing that the provision binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (\"USAO-SDFL\"), the government asks the Court to add the words \"in this District\" to that provision, on the thin suggestion that the parties must have meant to include the same limitation on location of prosecution that they included in Epstein's immunity provision, even though they failed to do so. And for good measure, the government asks the Court to find that the parties must have intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific statutory offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, even though—again—no such limitation appears in the text of the co-conspirator immunity provision.\n\nNotwithstanding the bedrock principle that plea agreements are construed strictly against the government, the government asks the Court to simply assume that the parties intended the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 223 Filed 04/20/21 Page 5 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell respectfully submits this Memorandum in Support of her Motion to Dismiss the Superseding Indictment for Breach of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"Motion\").",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As though it were wielding an invisible ink pen, the government adds language to its Non-Prosecution Agreement (\"NPA\") with Jeffrey Epstein that does not exist in the text, and then pretends no one can see the clear, unambiguous language that does appear there. The plain language of the NPA states, without limitation, that \"the United States . . . will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein.\" Because the Superseding Indictment (\"Indictment\") contends that Ms. Maxwell was a co-conspirator of Epstein, the NPA, on its face, applies here. Thus, the government's only argument, which it makes throughout its opposition, is that the NPA means something other than what it says.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In suggesting that the parties to the NPA intended to immunize only the four individuals specifically named in the co-conspirator immunity provision, the government flagrantly ignores the express statement that immunity is \"not limited to\" those individuals. In arguing that the provision binds only the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (\"USAO-SDFL\"), the government asks the Court to add the words \"in this District\" to that provision, on the thin suggestion that the parties must have meant to include the same limitation on location of prosecution that they included in Epstein's immunity provision, even though they failed to do so. And for good measure, the government asks the Court to find that the parties must have intended to limit co-conspirator immunity to specific statutory offenses committed between 2001 and 2007, even though—again—no such limitation appears in the text of the co-conspirator immunity provision.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Notwithstanding the bedrock principle that plea agreements are construed strictly against the government, the government asks the Court to simply assume that the parties intended the",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003878",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "2001",
      "2007"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 223"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a legal memorandum discussing a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of 23."
}