The Moscow Murders and More

The Docket: The Government Responds To Maxwell's Attempt At Appeal (Parts 1-3) (1/1/25)

In response to Ghislaine Maxwell's appeal, the United States government submitted a brief urging the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold her conviction and sentence. The government contended that Maxwell's arguments lacked merit, emphasizing that her prosecution was not barred by Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 non-prosecution agreement (NPA) with the Southern District of Florida. They argued that the NPA did not extend immunity to Maxwell for crimes prosecuted in the Southern District of New York, asserting that her conviction was based on substantial evidence demonstrating her pivotal role in facilitating Epstein's sexual abuse of minors.

Additionally, the government's brief addressed Maxwell's claims of juror misconduct and alleged procedural errors during the trial. They maintained that the district court had appropriately handled these issues, ensuring Maxwell's right to a fair trial was preserved. The government further argued that the sentence imposed was reasonable and proportionate to the severity of her offenses. Ultimately, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Maxwell's conviction and sentence, rejecting her appeal and supporting the government's position.

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Duration:: 40m
Broadcast on:: 01 Jan 2025
Audio Format:: other

At an enterprise level, nothing is more important than communication. Grammarly for enterprise enables your company to work smarter and faster. Other AI tools can't quantify business impact, but Grammarly gives you actionable insights and measurable results with features like their effective communication score, which tracks key metrics so you can make data-driven decisions to improve outcomes. Visit grammarly.com/enterprise. That's grammarly.com/enterprise. Welcome to where the five to nine more than makes up for the nine to five, where you check your worries the moment you walk in, where every day feels lucky. Even at night, welcome to the chance to savor every moment, every time you're here. For 50 years in counting, we've delivered legendary void hospitality, so join us for our 50th anniversary with special celebrations all year long. Welcome to Void Casino's. Welcome to where you want to be. What's up, everyone, and welcome back to the Epstein Chronicles. In this episode, we're going to begin taking a look at the United States government and the brief, in regard, to Glen Maxwell's attempt to get an appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, case number 22-1426. United States of America, vs. Glenn Maxwell, also known as Seal Defendant number one. The brief for the United States of America. Preliminary statement. Glenn Maxwell's appeal from a judgment of conviction entered on June 29, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York by the Honorable Alison J. Nathan. United States Circuit Judge, sitting by designation following a four and a half week Jerry trial. The superseding indictment, S-2, 20, CR, 330, AJN, the indictment, was filed on March 29, 2021, in eight counts. Count one charged Maxwell with conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 371. Count two charged Maxwell with the enticement of a minor in violation of 18 U.S. Code, Section 2422, and two. Count three charged Maxwell with conspiracy to transport minors to engage in illegal sexual activity in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 371. Count four charged Maxwell with transportation of a minor with intent to engage in illegal sexual activity in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 2423A, and two. Count five charged Maxwell with sex trafficking conspiracy in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 371. Count six charged Maxwell with sex trafficking of a minor in violation of U.S. Code 18. Section 1591A and B2, and two. Count seven and eight charged Maxwell with perjury in violation of U.S. Code 18, Section 1623. Trial on counts one through six commenced on November 29, 2021, and it ended on December 29, 2021. When the jury found Maxwell guilty on counts one and three through six and acquitted Maxwell on count two. On June 29, 2022, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to a term of 240 months imprisonment to be followed by five years supervised release and imposed a $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. Maxwell is serving her sentence. The statement affects. A. The government's case. The government's evidence and trial established that over the course of a decade Maxwell facilitated and participated in the sexual abuse of multiple young girls from 1994 to 2004. Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein worked together to identify girls, groom them, and then entice them to travel and transport them to Epstein's properties in New York, Florida, New Mexico, and elsewhere. The girls, some of whom were as young as 14 years old, were then sexually abused, often under the guise of a massage. The evidence at trial included, among other things, the testimony of four women who described the sexual abuse they suffered at the hands of Maxwell and Epstein. The testimony of former employees of Epstein and Maxwell, the testimony of law enforcement officers, corroborating physical evidence, including photographs of and evidence recovered from searches of Epstein's residences, and Maxwell and Epstein's black address book, and other corroborating records such as flight logs of Epstein's private planes and FedEx records. Beginning in approximately 1991, Maxwell had a close and intimate relationship with Epstein. Maxwell was Epstein's girlfriend for many years, until the early 2000s, after which Maxwell and Epstein remained close friends. For over a decade, Maxwell traveled with Epstein, a multi-millionaire, on his private planes and mingled with rich and famous people, while enjoying a life of extraordinary luxury. Maxwell and Epstein spent time together in Epstein's various properties, including his mansion on the Upper East Side of Manhattan, his villa in the Palm Beach, his ranch in New Mexico, his apartment in Paris, and his private island in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Maxwell also received a townhouse that Epstein bought for in New York City, and Epstein transferred more than $23 million to Maxwell during the time frame of the conspiracy. In addition to her role as Epstein's girlfriend, Maxwell also supervised Epstein's households as the Lady of the House. When she took charge of Epstein's homes, she imposed strict rules for staff, some of which were included in a household manual dictating the operation of the Palm Beach residence. To protect her criminal activities from exposure, Maxwell fostered a culture of silence at Epstein's homes. The household manual made clear that staff were to see nothing, hear nothing, say nothing, except to answer a question directed at, that staff member. Maxwell directed Juan Alessi, the former house manager of Epstein's Palm Beach villa, to speak to Epstein only when spoken to, and not to look Epstein in the eyes. This culture of silence provided cover for Maxwell and Epstein to sexually abuse young girls. In the early phase of the conspiracy between 1994 and 2001, Maxwell and Epstein identified vulnerable girls, typically from single mother households, and difficult financial circumstances. Maxwell and Epstein then isolated the girls spending time with them away from their family and friends. During that time, they groomed the girls through techniques such as giving them gifts, pretending to be friends, and building trust. Maxwell and Epstein then normalized sexual situations and sexual touching. Finally, they transitioned to sexual abuse, often through the pretext of giving Epstein a massage. In the later phase of the scheme from 2001 through 2004, Maxwell and Epstein developed a stream of girls who recruited other girls to visit Epstein at Palm Beach residence. Maxwell and Epstein paid young girls hundreds of dollars in cash in exchange for meeting Epstein to be sexually abused. Under the pretext of giving Epstein a massage. Once a girl was introduced to these sexualized massages, she was offered more money if she brought other girls to engage in sexualized massages. The trial evidence focused on six girls who suffered abusive sexual contact as a result of Maxwell's criminal actions, Jane, Kate, Annie, Carolyn, Virginia, and Melissa. One sexual abuse of Jane. Maxwell and Epstein met Jane in 1994 when she was just 14 years old at a summer camp for talented kids. Jane was particularly vulnerable as her father had just died, a fact that she had told both Epstein and Maxwell, and her family was struggling financially. Maxwell and Epstein cultivated a relationship with Jane, spending time with her at Epstein's Palm Beach home, and taking her to the movies and shopping. Maxwell and Epstein gave Jane gifts, and Jane came to look up to Maxwell like an older sister figure. Maxwell and Epstein sexually abused Jane starting when she was 14 years old, and the sexual abuse continued for years. When Jane was still only 14 years old, Maxwell and Epstein instructed Jane to follow them to Epstein's bedroom, where Maxwell and Epstein fondled each other, casually giggling while Epstein asked Jane to take her top off. After this sexual interaction, Maxwell and Epstein taught Jane how Epstein liked to be massaged and gave Jane instructions about touching Epstein's penis. Jane was repeatedly sexually abused by Epstein between the ages of 14 and 16 years old, and Maxwell was frequently in the room when the abuse happened. Over time, the abuse escalated as Epstein used vibrators on Jane, put fingers in Jane's vagina, and asked Jane to straddle his face. Maxwell sometimes touched Jane, including her breasts. During these incidents, Jane also traveled with Maxwell, who assisted Jane in making travel arrangements, and Epstein to Epstein's townhouse in New York City, his ranch in New Mexico, where she was sexually abused. Two, sexual abuse of Kate. Maxwell and Epstein, sexual abuse of Kate, started in 1994, around the same time that Maxwell and Epstein started sexually abusing Jane. After Kate, then 17 years old, told Maxwell that she lived alone with her mother, and had a difficult home life, Maxwell, introduced Kate to Epstein in London. Maxwell delivered Kate to a naked Epstein and Maxwell's own home for massages, and told Kate to have a good time. During these massages, Epstein initiated sexual contact. Kate traveled to meet both Maxwell and Epstein in Palm Beach, the Virgin Islands and New York City between ages 18 and 24. Epstein initiated sexual activity with Kate every time she visited him. Maxwell brought up sexual topics with Kate, ranging from talking about how sexually demanding Epstein was, to asking if Kate knew anybody, who could come and give Jeffrey a blowjob, to remarking that Epstein liked cute, young, pretty girls like Kate. When Kate was approximately 18 years old, she visited Epstein in Maxwell and Palm Beach. Maxwell left a school girl outfit for Kate, and said it would be fun for Kate to wear it for Epstein. Kate, alone, in a place she had never previously visited, complied. Epstein initiated sexual contact with Kate, and engaged in a sex act with her. Later that day, Maxwell asked Kate if she had fun and told Kate she was a good girl, and one of Epstein's favorites. Epstein engaged and unwanted sexual activity with Kate multiple times during the same trip. 3. Sexual Abuse of Annie Farmer Maxwell also took steps to normalize sexual contact with Annie Farmer, who was then 16 years old. Annie first met Epstein on a trip to New York, where she and her older sister visited Epstein's Manhattan townhouse, and during which Epstein began to groom Annie by stroking her hand and leg while watching a movie with her. In the spring of 1996, Annie's mother, at Epstein's request, agreed to send Annie to Epstein's ranch in New Mexico for a retreat for a group of students who were academically gifted. Annie felt more comfortable going once she understood that Maxwell, a grown woman, in a romantic relationship with Epstein would be there. During the New Mexico trip, Maxwell took steps to normalize sexual contact under the ruse of massage. Maxwell instructed Annie to hold Epstein's foot and showed her how to give Epstein a foot massage. Maxwell then offered to give Annie a massage. After telling Annie to get undressed, Maxwell gave Annie a massage on a massage table while Annie was naked. During the massage, Maxwell directed Annie to roll over so that Annie was laying on her back. After Annie complied and rolled to her back, Maxwell pulled the sheet down and exposed Annie's breasts. Then, while Annie was naked, Maxwell rubbed Annie's breasts. During this same trip to New Mexico, Epstein later got into Annie's bed, cuddled with her, pressed his body into her, and rubbed against her. But when Annie managed to extricate herself from the situation by running to the bathroom, thereby denying Epstein further sexual contact, Maxwell seemed very disinterested in Annie for the remainder of the trip. Number 4. The sexual abuse of Virginia Roberts. Beginning in or about the summer of 2000, Maxwell and Epstein entered into a new phase of their scheme to sexually abused teenage girls. That summer, Maxwell recruited a 17-year-old girl named Virginia Roberts from the parking lot of a Mar-a-Lago to provide Epstein with massages. Over the next several months, Virginia was paid to provide Epstein with sexualized massages at his Palm Beach residence in exchange for hundreds of dollars in cash for each massage. Virginia also traveled with Epstein and Maxwell to other locations, including New York and the Virgin Islands on Epstein's private plane. Virginia brought other teenage girls to Epstein's Palm Beach house. One of those girls was a 14-year-old girl named Carolyn, who Virginia introduced to Maxwell and Epstein at the Palm Beach Villa in 2001. 5. The sexual abuse of Carolyn. Carolyn met Maxwell the very first time she went to Epstein's house, and she interacted with Maxwell multiple times thereafter. On Carolyn's first visit to the house, Maxwell greeted Virginia, who introduced Carolyn to Maxwell. Maxwell then told Virginia, "You can bring her upstairs and show her what to do." After Virginia showed Carolyn how to perform sexual massages on Epstein, thereafter Carolyn performed over 100-page sexualized massages for Epstein when she was between 14 and 18 years old. The vast majority involved the same course of abuse through which Epstein masturbated, touched Carolyn's breasts and buttocks, and directed Carolyn to touch his nipples. Epstein also attempted to touch Carolyn's vagina with a vibrator, brought other females into the room to engage in oral sex with Carolyn, and raped Carolyn by penetrating her vagina with his penis. At first, Maxwell personally scheduled Carolyn's appointments with Epstein, including all phone calls from New York, and sometimes sent to car to pick Carolyn up because she was too young to drive. Maxwell also engaged Carolyn in conversations during which Carolyn revealed that she had previously been sexually abused by a relative, that her parents were separated and that her mother struggled with addiction. Maxwell invited Carolyn to travel with Maxwell and Epstein, but Carolyn responded that because she was only 14 years old, she would not be able to get permission to travel. Carolyn was paid several hundred dollars in 100 dollar bills after each massage, and Carolyn also received gifts of lingerie from Epstein and Maxwell shipped from Manhattan to her home in Florida. Usually the money was laid out on the table or by the sink in the bathroom, but Maxwell personally paid Carolyn after a few massages. Maxwell saw Carolyn fully nude in the massage room on approximately three occasions when Carolyn had already undressed in preparation for the massage, but before Epstein entered the room. On one such occasion when Carolyn was 14 years old, Maxwell told Carolyn that she had a nice body and touched Carolyn's breasts. At some point Epstein asked Carolyn if she had any young friends that she could bring for massages. Carolyn ended up bringing multiple girls to Epstein for sexualized massages, including multiple minors. When Carolyn brought girls to massage Epstein, both the girl and Carolyn would be paid hundreds of dollars in cash. One of the minor girls Carolyn brought to provide paid sexualized massages to Epstein was a 16 year old girl named Melissa. Melissa went to Epstein's residence to provide Epstein with massages on multiple occasions when she was under the age of 18. When Melissa and Carolyn went to the Palm Beach house, they remained in the home for about an hour and then returned with hundreds of dollars in cash. B. The defense case, verdict, and sentencing. Maxwell called nine witnesses in her defense case, including former employees and associates, as well as an expert on memory. On December 29, 2021, the jury found Maxwell guilty of counts 1, 3, 5, 4, and 6. On April 1, 2022, Judge Nathan denied Maxwell's motion for a new trial pursuant to FedR, Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, based on a juris provision of inaccurate information during jury selection, as discussed in greater detail in point three. On April 29, 2022, Judge Nathan denied all but one of Maxwell's remaining post trial motions. Judge Nathan found that the three conspiracy counts, count 1, 3, and 5, were multiplicitous, and that she, therefore, would enter judgment on count 3 alone among the conspiracy counts. On June 29, 2022, Judge Nathan sentenced Maxwell to 60 months imprisonment on count 3, 120 months imprisonment on count 4, and 240 months imprisonment on count 6, all to run concurrently to be followed by five years supervised release and impose the $750,000 fine and a $300 mandatory special assessment. Welcome to Pro Tips for the Pro's, brought to you by Florin Decor-Littleton. In this series, we'll explore essential advice for professional contractors to deliver outstanding renovation results. Let's dive in. Clear communication is key to a successful renovation. Keep the customer informed at every stage of the project, addressing any concerns or questions promptly to maintain trust and satisfaction. Thank you for joining us for this pro tip on planning thorough renovations. Stay tuned for more expert advice brought to you by Florin Decor-Littleton. A lot of people tolerate ordinary. Ordinary bathrooms, kitchens, entryways, will not on your watch. If you're a pro, you've got a new partner in town, Florin Decor. From tile to wood to stone, Florin Decor has more styles and job-lock quantities of Schluter, Mape, Laidacrete, and other brands Pro's Trust. Come see a whole new way to wow with Florin Decor. Now open in Littleton. Argument point one. The district court correctly concluded that Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement does not bar Maxwell's prosecution in the southern district of New York. In 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the southern district of Florida entered into a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein. Maxwell argues at this agreement, which neither she nor the U.S. Attorney's Office for the SDNY signed nevertheless bars her prosecution in the southern district of New York in this case. And she twice sought dismissal of the charges in the indictment on that ground. The district court denied the motions to dismiss, correctly recognizing that Maxwell's argument is precluded by the text of the agreement and the court's long-standing precedent. Accordingly, this court should affirm the denial of the motion to dismiss. The relevant facts. In 2005, the Palm Beach Police Department in Florida opened an investigation into Epstein on the complaint of the parents of a 14-year-old girl. The Palm Beach Police ultimately brought the investigation to the Federal Bureau of Investigation in West Palm Beach, which it turned opened an investigation with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the southern district of Florida. That investigation culminated in a draft 60-page indictment proposing to charge Epstein for the sexual abuse of multiple victims. In 2007, the USAO, SDFL and Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement. The agreement was signed on the authority of R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney for the southern district of Florida. Under the terms of the NPA, Epstein agreed to plead guilty in a pending Florida state case and to receive a sentence of at least 18 months imprisonment and 12 months community control. He also consented to jurisdiction in the southern district of Florida for civil suits involving victims specified by the USAO, SDFL, among other terms. In exchange, USAO, SDFL, agreed to defer prosecution in the district. Once Epstein completed his half of the bargain, the NPA provided that no prosecution for the offenses then under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office will be instituted in this district. The NPA also provided that if Epstein complied with the agreement, the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to, four named individuals, none of whom was Maxwell. Indeed, Maxwell was neither a party to the agreement nor involved in negotiating its terms. This provision appears to have been added with little discussion or consideration by the prosecutors. The NPA continues that upon execution of this agreement and the plea agreement with the state's attorney's office, the federal grand jury investigation will be suspended. The agreement was executed on September 24, 2007, and Epstein pled guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. In 2019, the Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility conducted an investigation into the negotiations surrounding the NPA and issued a 290-page report containing detailed factual findings. After the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, charged Maxwell in this case in the Southern District of New York, she twice moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that they were barred by the NPA. The district court denied the motions, concluding that the NPA does not bind the U.S.A.O.S.D.N.Y. (b) applicable law. The court has long held that a plea agreement binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction. United States v. Annabee, 771, F.2D, 670, 672, 2nd Circuit, 1985, Accord EG, United States v. Prisco, 391, F, Appendix 920, 921, 2nd Circuit, 2010, United States v. Salomee, 152, F, 3D, 88, 120, 2nd Circuit, 1998. The requisite affirmative appearance may be established by an express statement in the plea agreement, or it may be inferred from the negotiations between the defendant and the prosecutor, as well as from the statements at the plea colloquy. United States v. Russo, 801, F.2D, 624, 626, 2nd Circuit, 1986. This court reviews De Novo both the denial of emotion to dismiss an indictment and the interpretation of a plea agreement. United States v. Montog, 67F, 4th, 520, 527, 2nd Circuit, 2023, United States v. Padilla, 186, F.3D, 136, 139, 2nd Circuit, 1999. This court reviews for abuse, of discretion, a district court's denial of an evidentiary hearing before ruling on emotion to dismiss. United States v. Walters, 910, F.3D, 11, 22, 28, 2nd Circuit, 2018, United States v. Greenberg, 835, F.3D, 295, 305, 2nd Circuit, 2016. C. Discussion. The district court correctly rejected Maxwell's argument that the NPA bars this prosecution. Maxwell has no right to invoke the protections of the NPA because she is neither a party to nor a third party beneficiary of the agreement. But even if Maxwell had standing under the NPA, it would not bar this prosecution because it was plainly intended to bind only the USAOSDFL. Thus, Judge Nathan rightly concluded that under longstanding 2nd Circuit precedent, the NPA does not bind USAOSDNY. Accordingly, this court should affirm the denial of Maxwell's motions to dismiss. 1. Maxwell is not entitled to enforce the NPA. As an initial matter, Maxwell has no right to invoke the protections of the NPA. Maxwell was not a signatory of the agreement, while the third party beneficiary doctrine is a tenant of contract law. Its application to plea agreements under federal law is a separate question because plea agreements differ from commercial contracts in meaningful respects. United States v. Feldman, 939, F.3D, 182, 189, 2nd Circuit, 2019. We have long recognized that plea agreements are significantly different from commercial contracts. It's doubtful that a third party beneficiary can enforce a plea agreement. See United States v. Lopez, 944, F.2D, 33, 37, 1st Circuit, 1991, observing that we are unaware of authority supporting application of a third party beneficiary principles to a plea agreement in a criminal case. 2. United States v. Mariamma, Viju, 15, CR, 240, 2016, WL, 107, 841, at 4, ND, Texas, January 11, 2016, explaining that the right to enforce a plea deal does not exist for its own sake. Rather, it is a means to achieve fairness in plea bargaining, and enforcement by third parties adds nothing to protecting the defendant's rights. In any event, even under the third party beneficiary law on which Maxwell relies, she would have to show that the original parties intended the agreement to directly benefit her as a third party, United States v. Wilson, 216, F.3D, 645, 663, 7 Circuit, 2000, assuming without deciding that third party could enforce immunity agreement. See also United States v. Florida, International Airways Inc., 853, F, S. U. P. P., 2D, 1209, 1228, S. D. Florida, 2012. Third party must show that a direct and primary object of the contracting parties was to confer a benefit on the third party, quoting Bo-Chie's v. Town of Ponce, Inlet, 405, F.3D, 964, 982, 11 Circuit, 2005. Here Maxwell has failed to make the requisite showing. She is not named in the provision, naming for potential co-conspirators, and she has offered no evidence that the parties to the NPA intended to confer a benefit on her specifically. Accordingly, Maxwell may not enforce the NPA. 2. The NPA's terms bind only the USAO-SDFL. Even if Maxwell had a right to invoke the NPA's protections, it would not bar the charges in this case. By its terms, the NPA only applies to prosecutions brought by the USAO-SDFL. The agreement was signed on the authority of Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney, for the Southern District of Florida. And in exchange for Epstein's plea and state court, the USAO-SDFL agreed to defer prosecution in this district, that is, the Southern District of Florida. The USAO-SDFL further promised that no prosecution by the Federal Bureau of the Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office will be instituted in this district. In agreement by the U.S., AOSDFL, not the prosecute Epstein in Southern District of Florida, is an agreement intended to apply only to the USAO-SDFL and only to the Southern District of Florida. Moreover, the agreement was signed by officials of the USAO-SDFL and no other components of the Department of Justice. Accordingly, the plain terms of the NPA make clear that the agreement only binds the USAO-SDFL. Maxwell's argument that the NPA binds the USAO-SDNY relies on a separate provision of the agreement, which says that the United States also agrees that it will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to a list of four individuals, does not include the defendant, but her argument that the term United States means the entire federal government requires the term to be read in isolation. As Judge Nathan explained, terms like the United States or the government are common shorthand for a single U.S. Attorney's Office and the plea agreement need not painstakingly spell out the office of the United States Attorney for such and such district in every instance to make clear that it applies only to the district where it was signed. C. Salomey, 152, F.3D at 120, the mere use of the term "government" in the plea agreement does not create an affirmative appearance that the agreement contemplated barring districts other than the particular district entering into the agreement, United States v. Gonzalez, 93F.APEPx268270, 2nd Circuit 2004. Although a paragraph 12B uses the term "United States" rather than the term "government", this is a distinction from our prior case law without difference. Reading the MPA as a whole confirms that conclusion. The very next sentence of the agreement states that the federal grand jury investigation will be suspended. The grand jury investigation is the one that U.S.A.O.S.S.D.FL agreed to defer in the same agreement and not any potential federal grand jury investigations in other districts. Furthermore, the NPA elsewhere refers to the United States on occasion that could only mean the U.S.A.O.S.D.FL. For instance, the NPA commits the United States, that is, the U.S.A.O.S.D.FL, to providing Epstein with a list of victims, A.177. The United States shall provide Epstein's attorneys with a list of individuals whom it has identified as victims. Another provision states that the NPA will not be made part of the public record and commits the United States again, the U.S.A.O.S.D.FL, to providing notice to Epstein if it receives a Freedom of Information Act request requiring disclosure of the agreement. A. 178. The mere fact that the co-conspirators provision of the NPA use the phrase "United States" rather than "U.S. Attorney's Office" is not evidence that the parties intended an unusually broad immunity provision. C. Kirstang versus John Wiley and Sons Inc., 568, U.S., 595, 40, 2013. We are not aware, however, of any canon interpretation that forbids interpreting different words used in different parts of the same statute to mean roughly the same thing. As Judge Nathan concluded, given the repeated limitations of the commitments in the NPA to the U.S.A.O.S.D.FL, including the commitment not to prosecute Epstein, it's not plausible that the parties intended to drastically expand the agreement's scope in the single sentence on the prosecution of co-conspirators without clearly saying so. Maxwell also points to the NPA provision, stating that Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability. Based on that statement, Maxwell argues that Epstein's purpose in negotiating the NPA was to obtain a global resolution that would, among other things, provide maximum protection for any alleged co-conspirators. But the cited provision only says that Epstein sought to resolve his liability not anyone else's. Furthermore, under Maxwell's reading, Epstein bargained for a truly global resolution only for his co-conspirators and limited his own global resolution expressly to the U.S.A.O.S.D.FL. There is no reason to believe that Epstein expressly sought and obtained broader immunity for his co-conspirators than he did for himself. Lacking any support in the text of the NPA itself, Maxwell attempts to show the NPA applies here based on the negotiations between defendant and prosecutor. Russo 801 F.2D at 626. In particular, Maxwell claims that the negotiating history of the NPA shows that senior levels of main justice were directly involved in the negotiation and approval of the NPA, even to the extent that the separate presentations were made to and approval of the NPA was obtained from the office of the Deputy Attorney General. This assertion, however, mischaracterizes the record and further underscores the absence of any senior approvals in negotiating the NPA. The pages, to which Maxwell cites, described activities after the NPA was signed in which Justice Department officials in Washington refused to believe Epstein of his obligations under the NPA. The OPR report reflects that the office of the Deputy Attorney General reviewed the NPA but only after it was signed when Epstein tried to get out of it. Even then, however, those officials did not approve the NPA. Statement by the Assistant Attorney General that she did not review or approve the agreement either before or after it was signed. The department, however, only reviewed the issue of federal jurisdiction and never reviewed the NPA or any specific provisions. Maxwell also cobbles together instances in which the US-AO, SDFL, and the FBI in Florida enlisted the assistance of other components of the federal government or considered acting outside of Florida such as the US-AO, SDFL's contact with witnesses in New York. These disparate and unconnected events do not show the US-AO, SDFL acted on behalf of the entire federal government when entering into the NPA, or that Epstein understood the US-AO, SDFL, to be doing so. Maxwell also advances several arguments attempting to minimize or sidestep the court's precedent. For example, Maxwell argues that Annabe applies only if the charges in the indictment are sufficiently distinct from the counts resolved by the earlier agreement. Not so. The relevant portions of Annabe concerned an argument by the defendants that in seeking to have a plea agreement in the Eastern District of New York bar the pending charges in the Southern District of New York, they were seeking only the same protection accorded by the Double Jeopardy clause, 771, F.2D at 672. This court rejected that argument, reasoning that even if the Double Jeopardy clause applied notwithstanding, to the defendants that were never in jeopardy on those charges in the Eastern District, the defendants would not be entitled to relief because the pending charges extended for an additional two years, and thus were not the same charges that were dismissed. Thus Annabe did not hold that its rule, that a plea agreement, binds only the office of the United States Attorney for the district in which the plea is entered, unless it affirmatively appears that the agreement contemplates a broader restriction, applies only if the charges are sufficiently distinct, and as Judge Nathan recognized, no subsequent second circuit case, applying Annabe has so held. Next Maxwell argues that this court should disregard its own precedence and instead apply 11 circuit law because the MPA was negotiated in Florida, with Southern District of Florida prosecutors in exchange for Epstein's agreement to plead guilty in Florida state court, but this court has consistently applied Annabe even when considering plea agreements from out of district districts, Presco 391, F at 921, District of New Jersey, United States vs. Asheroff, 320, 2628, Second Circuit 2009, Eastern District of Virginia, Gonzales 93F, Appendix at 270, District of New Mexico, United States vs. Brown No. 99, 1230L, 2002 WL, 342, 44994 at 2, Second Circuit 2004, Southern District Florida. These decisions are consistent with choice of law principles in criminal cases where the governing law is always that of the forum state in the forum court has jurisdiction. American conflicts law 375 5th Edition 2021, see two attorney client privilege in the United States, Section 1210. Choice of law scholars have long recognized that criminal law, local in nature, and it settled that in criminal prosecutions, the court will routinely apply the substantive law of the forum, American conflicts law 390. In any event, 11 circuit law would not support Maxwell's claim. Maxwell does not cite any 11 circuit decisions addressing when one U.S. Attorney's Office is bound by a plea agreement with another U.S. Attorney's Office. But in context, the 11 circuit held that a U.S. Attorney's promise made in a plea agreement that a criminal defendant would not be deported was unenforceable because the U.S. Attorney lacked authority to make that promise. San Pedro vs. United States 79FD, 1065, 1072, 11 circuit, 1996. In the 11 circuit, were to apply the reasoning of San Pedro to the issue in this case, it would likely reach the same result because U.S. Attorney's only has authority to act within his district, U.S. Code 28, Section 547, and must seek the approval of each affected U.S. Attorney's Office before entering into any non-prosecution agreement that reports to bind another district. See Justice Manual, Section 927.641. No district or division shall make any agreement, including any agreement, not to prosecute, which purports to bind any other district or division without the approval of the United States Attorneys in each affected district and/or the appropriate assistant Attorney General. Finally, Maxwell devotes much of her brief to criticizing an abbey, but this court's rule is sound, as it ensures that a criminal defendant, or even as here, a co-conspirator, will not receive the windfall of immunity that was never intended by the parties to the original agreement, while leaving parties free to enter into legitimate, multi-district resolutions if they wish, nor has Maxwell's parade of "horribles" come to pass in the decades since an abbey was decided. Furthermore, the same rule has long been applied in the 7 circuit, see Thompson v. United States, 431, Appendix 491, 4937 Circuit 2011, United States v. Rourke, 74, F.3D, 802, 807, and .5. 7 circuit, 1996. In any event this court need not engage in a point-by-point analysis of the merits of an abbey because it remains binding precedent, see United States v. Wilkerson, 361, F.3D, 717, 732, second circuit, 2004. Thus Epstein's NPA, with the USAO-SDFL, does not bar this prosecution of Maxwell and Judge Nathan correctly denied the motions to dismiss. Alright, we're gonna wrap up right here, and in the next episode we'll pick up where we left off, and that's with the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to conduct a hearing. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.