DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
738 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
6
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
738 KB
Summary
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion. The central issue is whether a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) made between the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and Epstein also prevents other districts from prosecuting Epstein's co-conspirators. The government contends that the defendant has provided no evidence to support this claim and that legal precedent within the circuit confirms that the NPA does not bind other districts.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Epstein |
Mentioned in relation to a potential prosecution of his co-conspirators and a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) he had ...
|
|
| Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division | Assistant Attorney General |
Mentioned as a party whose express written approval is needed for an agreement not to prosecute to bind other districts.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| United States Attorney(s) | government agency |
Mentioned as needing to give express written approval for an agreement to bind other districts.
|
| Criminal Division | government agency |
A division of a government agency (likely DOJ) whose Assistant Attorney General must approve multi-district agreements.
|
| Department of Justice | government agency |
Mentioned as having conducted 'multiple layers of review' regarding the Epstein matter.
|
| USAO-SDFL | government agency |
The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which made a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Ep...
|
| OPR | government agency |
Office of Professional Responsibility, whose investigation is cited as not supporting the defendant's claim.
|
| Eleventh Circuit | government agency |
A federal court circuit mentioned in a footnote regarding the defendant's legal arguments.
|
Timeline (2 events)
The defendant filed a motion arguing that Epstein's NPA binds other districts, which the government is now refuting.
this Circuit
defendant
government
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Southern District of Florida, cited in a legal reference.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"the government had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein’s co-conspirators in this District and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude it,"Source
— defendant
(An allegation made by the defendant in a motion, which the author of this document describes as 'sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported'.)
DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
Quote #1
"affirmative appearance"Source
— unspecified
(Used to describe the lack of evidence that the NPA binds other districts.)
DOJ-OGR-00002975.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,190 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 41 of 239
including any agreement not to prosecute, which purports to bind
any other district(s) or division without the express written approval
of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the
Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.’
any other district(s) or division without the express written approval
of the United States Attorney(s) in each affected district and/or the
Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division.’
Government Brief, 08 Civ. 80736 (KAM), Dkt. No. 205-2, at 11 n.11 (S.D. Fla.) (quoting United
States Attorney’s Manual, 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests)). Significantly,
this brief was signed by the same prosecutor who negotiated and signed the NPA. Id. Although
the defendant makes the sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported allegation that “the government
had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein’s co-conspirators in this District
and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude
it,” the USAO-SDFL’s brief says otherwise. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Further still, the record
developed in both civil litigation and OPR’s investigation does not support this claim.
States Attorney’s Manual, 9-27.641 (Multi-District (Global) Agreement Requests)). Significantly,
this brief was signed by the same prosecutor who negotiated and signed the NPA. Id. Although
the defendant makes the sweeping, self-serving, and unsupported allegation that “the government
had every reason to foresee a potential prosecution of Epstein’s co-conspirators in this District
and, after multiple layers of review within the Department of Justice, intended to agree to preclude
it,” the USAO-SDFL’s brief says otherwise. (Def. Mot. 1 at 22). Further still, the record
developed in both civil litigation and OPR’s investigation does not support this claim.
***
As the foregoing makes clear, the defendant has failed to produce any evidence that the
USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that other districts would be bound by the NPA. There is no
“affirmative appearance” that the NPA binds other districts, and the motion should be denied.
Under Annabi and its progeny, the defendant has failed to establish that the NPA binds other
districts. For this reason alone, the defendant’s motion should be dismissed, in keeping with the
well-established law in this Circuit.⁸
USAO-SDFL promised Epstein that other districts would be bound by the NPA. There is no
“affirmative appearance” that the NPA binds other districts, and the motion should be denied.
Under Annabi and its progeny, the defendant has failed to establish that the NPA binds other
districts. For this reason alone, the defendant’s motion should be dismissed, in keeping with the
well-established law in this Circuit.⁸
⁸ In her motion, the defendant asks this Court to apply a bizarre and unprecedented choice-of-
federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from
the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23-
25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no authority for the
proposition that federal plea agreements are governed by the choice of law principles that apply to
conflicting state laws. Annabi is the binding law of this Circuit, and this Court must apply it.
federal-law doctrine, under which the defendant asks the Court to apply non-existent rulings from
the Eleventh Circuit on an issue that Court does not appear to have reached. (Def. Mot. 1 at 23-
25). This argument has no legal foundation, and the defendant offers no authority for the
proposition that federal plea agreements are governed by the choice of law principles that apply to
conflicting state laws. Annabi is the binding law of this Circuit, and this Court must apply it.
14
DOJ-OGR-00002975
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document