mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002582.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "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 10 of 38\n\ndefendant); it is about whether the government, in bringing charges, has met the governing legal standards. It has not done so here, and the indictment must be dismissed.\n\n****\n\nThis memorandum focuses on the NPA. As this memorandum demonstrates, Ms. Maxwell's indictment violates the clear and unqualified terms of the NPA and should therefore be dismissed. The NPA was heavily negotiated over approximately eight months and involved not only Epstein and the SDFL but also senior levels of Main Justice in Washington, D.C., which approved the NPA before its execution. Given the blistering public criticism of the NPA and of Acosta's handling of the Epstein investigation, it is understandable that the current regime may wish the government had not entered into the NPA, or that it had negotiated different terms.\n\nIndeed, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (\"OPR\") found that Acosta exercised \"poor judgment\" and \"agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA,\" which OPR characterized as a \"unique resolution.\"\n\nBut the government is bound by the agreement it negotiated and executed. And the NPA is clear, explicit, and unambiguous. The government cannot now ask this Court to rewrite the agreement in a way more favorable to its current position, nor overlook key distinctions in the agreement, by claiming that they were drafting mistakes or omissions. Nor may the government ask this Court to construe ambiguities in its favor, in contravention of black-letter law that non-prosecution agreements must be construed strictly against the government.\n\nThe government, in prior submissions, has raised three arguments why the NPA does not apply here, none of which has merit:\n\nFirst, the government asserts that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA because she is not a party to it and is not named in it. The government ignores that the parties to 5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002582",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 142 Filed 02/04/21 Page 10 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "defendant); it is about whether the government, in bringing charges, has met the governing legal standards. It has not done so here, and the indictment must be dismissed.\n\n****\n\nThis memorandum focuses on the NPA. As this memorandum demonstrates, Ms. Maxwell's indictment violates the clear and unqualified terms of the NPA and should therefore be dismissed. The NPA was heavily negotiated over approximately eight months and involved not only Epstein and the SDFL but also senior levels of Main Justice in Washington, D.C., which approved the NPA before its execution. Given the blistering public criticism of the NPA and of Acosta's handling of the Epstein investigation, it is understandable that the current regime may wish the government had not entered into the NPA, or that it had negotiated different terms.\n\nIndeed, the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility (\"OPR\") found that Acosta exercised \"poor judgment\" and \"agreed to several unusual and problematic terms in the NPA,\" which OPR characterized as a \"unique resolution.\"\n\nBut the government is bound by the agreement it negotiated and executed. And the NPA is clear, explicit, and unambiguous. The government cannot now ask this Court to rewrite the agreement in a way more favorable to its current position, nor overlook key distinctions in the agreement, by claiming that they were drafting mistakes or omissions. Nor may the government ask this Court to construe ambiguities in its favor, in contravention of black-letter law that non-prosecution agreements must be construed strictly against the government.\n\nThe government, in prior submissions, has raised three arguments why the NPA does not apply here, none of which has merit:\n\nFirst, the government asserts that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA because she is not a party to it and is not named in it. The government ignores that the parties to",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002582",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Acosta"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Department of Justice",
      "Office of Professional Responsibility",
      "SDFL",
      "Main Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington, D.C."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "142",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002582"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, discussing the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and its implications. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}