Epstein Secrets

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

him to benefit third- parties," and therefore the defendant was a third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the agreement. Id. at 609. Both Florida West and EI-Sadig illustrate how the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA is contrary to bedrock principles of contra

squarely refutes the government's position. The co-conspirator immunity provision does not prohibit merely prosecutions by the USAO for the SDFL ("USAO-SDFL"), but by "the United States." This broad prohibition was intentional, as demonstrated by the express references elsewhere in the NPA to the United

him to benefit third- parties," and therefore the defendant was I third-party beneficiary with standing to enforce the agreement. Id. at 609. Both Florida West and EI-Sadig illustrate how the government's argument that Ms. Maxwell lacks standing to enforce the NPA is contrary to bedrock principles of contra

hree courts have applied the third-party beneficiary doctrine to confer standing on third parties to enforce immunity provisions in plea agreements. Florida West, 853 F. Supp. 2d at 1228; El- Sadig, 133 F. Supp. 2d at 608-09; United States v. CFWConst Co., 583 F. Supp. 197, 203 (D.S.C. 1984), aff'd, 749 F.2d

ision in the NPA is intended to refer only to the USAO-SDFL, it does so explicitly. See Mem. at 8-9 (citing examples of NPA's explicit references to USAO-SDFL). While the government is correct that the use of the term "the United States" in a plea agreement, without snore, is insufficient under Annabi and