{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "285",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 9 of 34\n\nThe attorneys promised to send AUSA \"affidavits and depositions\" to support their request for a prosecution. Id. at 8.\nCalling the meeting \"intriguing,\" AUSA emailed the Chief of the Criminal Division three days later and proposed to \"talk over the facts with him. Ex. M, pp 1-2. He agreed. Id. at 1.\nIn the days and weeks after the February 29 meeting, there were several emails between Giuffre's attorneys and AUSA . Exs. L & N.\nThere was also at least one phone call. Ex. K, at 4.\nGiuffre's attorneys provided AUSA with documents as promised. Id. at 2; see also Ex. L, p 2.\nMost importantly, the government now admits that AUSA , the prosecutor in charge of the case who appeared before Chief Judge McMahon on April 9, 2019, knew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began.\nNone of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.\nAs described above, Giuffre's attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J.\nThen, two months after the meeting with AUSA , Giuffre's attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over Giuffre's defamation against Maxwell—that there was an\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00004144",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 9 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The attorneys promised to send AUSA \"affidavits and depositions\" to support their request for a prosecution. Id. at 8.\nCalling the meeting \"intriguing,\" AUSA emailed the Chief of the Criminal Division three days later and proposed to \"talk over the facts with him. Ex. M, pp 1-2. He agreed. Id. at 1.\nIn the days and weeks after the February 29 meeting, there were several emails between Giuffre's attorneys and AUSA . Exs. L & N.\nThere was also at least one phone call. Ex. K, at 4.\nGiuffre's attorneys provided AUSA with documents as promised. Id. at 2; see also Ex. L, p 2.\nMost importantly, the government now admits that AUSA , the prosecutor in charge of the case who appeared before Chief Judge McMahon on April 9, 2019, knew all of this and still denied that Boies Schiller had any role in fomenting the investigation and claimed that there had been no contacts between Boies Schiller and his office before November 2018, when he claimed the investigation first began.\nNone of these statements by AUSA to Judge McMahon were true.\nAs described above, Giuffre's attorneys pressed the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York to investigate and prosecute Epstein and Maxwell. Ex. J.\nThen, two months after the meeting with AUSA , Giuffre's attorneys told Judge Sweet—who was presiding over Giuffre's defamation against Maxwell—that there was an",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004144",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Giuffre",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "McMahon",
      "Sweet"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "U.S. Attorney's Office",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 29",
      "April 9, 2019",
      "November 2018",
      "05/20/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 285",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004144"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redacted names of AUSAs. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is from a legal case involving Giuffre, Epstein, and Maxwell."
}