{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "11702",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-03303-AJN Document 11702 Filed 03/23/21 Page 3 of 38\n- On-premises 24/7 private security to prevent Ms. Maxwell from leaving the residence without pre-approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and to escort her when authorized to leave the residence;\n- Visitors to be pre-approved by Pretrial Services;\n- Strict supervision by Pretrial Services;\n- Such other terms as the Court deems appropriate.\nThe government goes to great lengths to oppose bail arguing technicalities and offering unfounded innuendo ripped from the tabloid headlines to avoid addressing the merits of Ms. Maxwell's exceptional bail package, which puts at risk everything she has, including the assets of her spouse and the financial security of her family and closest friends.\nThe Court Retains Jurisdiction to Decide Matters Related to Bail\nThe government asserts that the Court should not consider the present bail motion because appeal of denial of the Second Bail Motion, not yet briefed, is pending before the Second Circuit. (Dkt. 165 at 2-3). It is ironic that the government takes this position given that it created this problem by opposing Ms. Maxwell's request for an enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court's denial of her Second Bail Motion. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell sought the extension to avoid this very issue. (Dkt. 109). The government should not now be allowed to turn that procedural sword into a jurisdictional shield to prevent the Court from considering the instant motion.\nDivestiture of jurisdiction in the district court while an appeal is pending is not a per se rule. Rather, it is a judicially crafted rule rooted in the interest of judicial economy that is designed to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time. Divestiture of jurisdiction, therefore, should not be automatic, but\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00001257",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-03303-AJN Document 11702 Filed 03/23/21 Page 3 of 38",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- On-premises 24/7 private security to prevent Ms. Maxwell from leaving the residence without pre-approval by the Court or Pretrial Services and to escort her when authorized to leave the residence;\n- Visitors to be pre-approved by Pretrial Services;\n- Strict supervision by Pretrial Services;\n- Such other terms as the Court deems appropriate.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government goes to great lengths to oppose bail arguing technicalities and offering unfounded innuendo ripped from the tabloid headlines to avoid addressing the merits of Ms. Maxwell's exceptional bail package, which puts at risk everything she has, including the assets of her spouse and the financial security of her family and closest friends.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Court Retains Jurisdiction to Decide Matters Related to Bail",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government asserts that the Court should not consider the present bail motion because appeal of denial of the Second Bail Motion, not yet briefed, is pending before the Second Circuit. (Dkt. 165 at 2-3). It is ironic that the government takes this position given that it created this problem by opposing Ms. Maxwell's request for an enlargement of time to file a notice of appeal to the Court's denial of her Second Bail Motion. Indeed, Ms. Maxwell sought the extension to avoid this very issue. (Dkt. 109). The government should not now be allowed to turn that procedural sword into a jurisdictional shield to prevent the Court from considering the instant motion.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Divestiture of jurisdiction in the district court while an appeal is pending is not a per se rule. Rather, it is a judicially crafted rule rooted in the interest of judicial economy that is designed to avoid confusion or waste of time resulting from having the same issues before two courts at the same time. Divestiture of jurisdiction, therefore, should not be automatic, but",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001257",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Pretrial Services",
      "Second Circuit Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/23/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-03303-AJN",
      "11702",
      "165",
      "109",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001257"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the bail hearing of Ms. Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document includes references to specific court documents and proceedings."
}