epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00000315.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "9:08-cv-80736",
    "date": "07/16/2019",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 9:08-cv-80736 Document 596-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2019 Page 11 of 20\n\nProsecution Agreement] barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 . . .\").10 That is simply not so.\n\nContrary to Petitioners' contentions, there has been no disposition by the government of any federal criminal charges against Epstein. No federal charges involving Petitioners have ever been brought against Epstein, and no such federal charges have been resolved. The Non-Prosecution Agreement about which Petitioners complain disposes of no federal criminal charges against Epstein, and that agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein. Instead, when addressing potential federal criminal charges against Epstein, the USAO-SDFL merely agreed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that:\n\non the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.\n\nand that\n\nAfter timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.\n\nNon-Prosecution Agreement at 2 (emphasis added).\n\nThus, the Non-Prosecution Agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution\n\n10 This Court has also previously described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"an agreement under which . . . the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses.\" DE 99 at 2-3. That description of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, however, was not based on the Court's interpretation of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but was instead based on \"allegations\" by Petitioners that the Court concluded were \"not yet supported by evidence\" but upon which the Court nonetheless relied \"solely to provide the context for the threshold issues addressed in\" its September 26, 2011 Order. Id. at 2 n.2.\n\n10\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000315",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 9:08-cv-80736 Document 596-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/16/2019 Page 11 of 20",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Prosecution Agreement] barred prosecution of the federal sexual offenses that Epstein had committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 . . .\").10 That is simply not so.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contrary to Petitioners' contentions, there has been no disposition by the government of any federal criminal charges against Epstein. No federal charges involving Petitioners have ever been brought against Epstein, and no such federal charges have been resolved. The Non-Prosecution Agreement about which Petitioners complain disposes of no federal criminal charges against Epstein, and that agreement does not bar the United States from bringing federal criminal charges against Epstein. Instead, when addressing potential federal criminal charges against Epstein, the USAO-SDFL merely agreed in the Non-Prosecution Agreement that:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District for these offenses shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the State of Florida, provided that Epstein abides by the following conditions and the requirements of this Agreement set forth below.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "and that",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "After timely fulfilling all the terms and conditions of the Agreement, no prosecution for the offenses set out on pages 1 and 2 of this Agreement, nor any other offenses that have been the subject of the joint investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Attorney's Office, nor any offenses that arose from the Federal Grand Jury investigation will be instituted in this District, and the charges against Epstein if any, will be dismissed.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Non-Prosecution Agreement at 2 (emphasis added).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Thus, the Non-Prosecution Agreement simply obligated the government not to prosecute Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for the offenses set forth in the Non-Prosecution",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10 This Court has also previously described the Non-Prosecution Agreement as \"an agreement under which . . . the U.S. Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses.\" DE 99 at 2-3. That description of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, however, was not based on the Court's interpretation of the terms of the Non-Prosecution Agreement, but was instead based on \"allegations\" by Petitioners that the Court concluded were \"not yet supported by evidence\" but upon which the Court nonetheless relied \"solely to provide the context for the threshold issues addressed in\" its September 26, 2011 Order. Id. at 2 n.2.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000315",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Jane Doe #1",
      "Jane Doe #2",
      "R. Alexander Acosta"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL",
      "Federal Bureau of Investigation",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of Florida",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/16/2019",
      "September 26, 2011"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "9:08-cv-80736",
      "DE 99",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000315"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}