mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021078.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "31",
    "document_number": "59",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page31 of 113\n\nB. Appellant may enforce the NPA as a third-party beneficiary.\n\nAppellant is a third-party beneficiary of the NPA, and for that reason has standing to enforce it. The District Court declined to adopt the Government's arguments to the contrary, and this Court should do the same. See U.S. v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir. 2000)\n\nHere, the NPA grants immunity to \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].\" A178 (emphasis added). As the court recognized, this is a definable class that includes Maxwell. A144.\n\nC. The \"potential co-conspirators\" provision binds the USAO-SDNY, and Annabi is not to the contrary\n\n1. Introduction\n\nThe court rejected Appellant's attempt to enforce the NPA against the S2 Indictment on only one ground: it found that the co-conspirator provision's reference to \"the United States\" did not really mean the United States, but only the USAO-SDFL, and thus did not bind other USAOs. A189-192. But in ruling that the NPA did not mean what it said, the District Court ignored the plain text of the NPA, unsettled the parties' objectively reasonable expectations, and misapplied Circuit precedent. What is more, the court abused its discretion by endorsing this\n\n16\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021078",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 59, 02/28/2023, 3475902, Page31 of 113",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. Appellant may enforce the NPA as a third-party beneficiary.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Appellant is a third-party beneficiary of the NPA, and for that reason has standing to enforce it. The District Court declined to adopt the Government's arguments to the contrary, and this Court should do the same. See U.S. v. Andreas, 216 F.3d 645, 663 (7th Cir. 2000)",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Here, the NPA grants immunity to \"any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to [four named individuals].\" A178 (emphasis added). As the court recognized, this is a definable class that includes Maxwell. A144.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The \"potential co-conspirators\" provision binds the USAO-SDNY, and Annabi is not to the contrary",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Introduction",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The court rejected Appellant's attempt to enforce the NPA against the S2 Indictment on only one ground: it found that the co-conspirator provision's reference to \"the United States\" did not really mean the United States, but only the USAO-SDFL, and thus did not bind other USAOs. A189-192. But in ruling that the NPA did not mean what it said, the District Court ignored the plain text of the NPA, unsettled the parties' objectively reasonable expectations, and misapplied Circuit precedent. What is more, the court abused its discretion by endorsing this",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021078",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Andreas",
      "Annabi"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "Document 59",
      "3475902",
      "A178",
      "A144",
      "A189-192",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021078"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case involving Epstein and Maxwell. The text is printed and there is no handwriting or stamps visible."
}