{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "103",
    "date": "12/23/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103 Filed 12/23/20 Page 11 of 15\n\nSimilarly, the financial report does not include a future income stream for Ms. Maxwell or her spouse because it presents only historical and current assets. Even so, Ms. Maxwell has no certain future income stream. Her spouse and has had to liquidate his existing investments to help Ms. Maxwell. Finally, the reference to is gratuitous. Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge of\n\nBut the larger point is this: Ms. Maxwell has proposed a substantial bail package with multiple co-signers and significant security. She and her spouse have pledged all of their assets in support of the bond. Ms. Maxwell's wealth is not a reason to deny her bail. It is a reason to set appropriately strict conditions that will result in significant financial consequences to Ms. Maxwell and her friends and family if she leaves the country. The proposed bail package does exactly that.6\n\nC. The Government's Assertion that Ms. Maxwell Is \"Adept\" at Hiding and Therefore a Flight Risk Is Specious\n\nThe government continues to assert the sinister narrative that Ms. Maxwell had \"an expertise at remaining hidden,\" and that it would therefore be easy for her to become a fugitive.\n\n6 The government's argument that her spouse's moral suasion is diminished because Ms. Maxwell brought the majority of assets to the relationship is nonsensical. (Id. at 24-25). Regardless of whose money it was to begin with, all of the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse will be forfeited if she flees and her spouse will be left with nothing. Furthermore, the government's assertion that they could not verify the spouse's financial information because Ms. Maxwell did not provide his current banking information is false. (Id. at 24 n.9). The defense provided the spouse's current banking records and only redacted the name of the bank.\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00002217",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103 Filed 12/23/20 Page 11 of 15",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Similarly, the financial report does not include a future income stream for Ms. Maxwell or her spouse because it presents only historical and current assets. Even so, Ms. Maxwell has no certain future income stream. Her spouse and has had to liquidate his existing investments to help Ms. Maxwell. Finally, the reference to is gratuitous. Ms. Maxwell had no knowledge of",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "But the larger point is this: Ms. Maxwell has proposed a substantial bail package with multiple co-signers and significant security. She and her spouse have pledged all of their assets in support of the bond. Ms. Maxwell's wealth is not a reason to deny her bail. It is a reason to set appropriately strict conditions that will result in significant financial consequences to Ms. Maxwell and her friends and family if she leaves the country. The proposed bail package does exactly that.6",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C. The Government's Assertion that Ms. Maxwell Is \"Adept\" at Hiding and Therefore a Flight Risk Is Specious",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government continues to assert the sinister narrative that Ms. Maxwell had \"an expertise at remaining hidden,\" and that it would therefore be easy for her to become a fugitive.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "6 The government's argument that her spouse's moral suasion is diminished because Ms. Maxwell brought the majority of assets to the relationship is nonsensical. (Id. at 24-25). Regardless of whose money it was to begin with, all of the assets of Ms. Maxwell and her spouse will be forfeited if she flees and her spouse will be left with nothing. Furthermore, the government's assertion that they could not verify the spouse's financial information because Ms. Maxwell did not provide his current banking information is false. (Id. at 24 n.9). The defense provided the spouse's current banking records and only redacted the name of the bank.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002217",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "country"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "12/23/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 103",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002217"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
}