{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "70-1",
    "date": "05/17/2021",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 21-770, Document 70-1, 05/17/2021, 3102450, Page3 of 14\n\nAppellant Ghislaine Maxwell's Renewed Motion for Bond\n\nAlthough this Court denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for bond (see Ex. A, Order, April 27, 2021), it appeared concerned with the conditions of her confinement during oral argument and instructed Ms. Maxwell that \"[t]o the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court.\" (Id.).\n\nMs. Maxwell did just that, explaining again to the trial judge the grueling conditions of her confinement, which includes shining a flashlight in Ms. Maxwell's eyes every 15 minutes, over the past 318 days in solitary confinement, even though she is not suicidal and even though no other inmate suffers such abuse. Ex. C, Doc. 256. The government responded, Ex. D, and although it previously intimated that Ms. Maxwell might be suicidal (she's not), it now said that the sleep deprivation was justified because she is housed alone, because of the nature of the charges, and because the case is high-profile. Not one of these reasons makes any sense upon any examination. The government did not provide an affidavit from anyone at the jail or explain why depriving Ms. Maxwell\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001409",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 21-770, Document 70-1, 05/17/2021, 3102450, Page3 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Appellant Ghislaine Maxwell's Renewed Motion for Bond",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although this Court denied Ghislaine Maxwell's motion for bond (see Ex. A, Order, April 27, 2021), it appeared concerned with the conditions of her confinement during oral argument and instructed Ms. Maxwell that \"[t]o the extent Appellant seeks relief specific to her sleeping conditions, such request should be addressed to the District Court.\" (Id.).",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ms. Maxwell did just that, explaining again to the trial judge the grueling conditions of her confinement, which includes shining a flashlight in Ms. Maxwell's eyes every 15 minutes, over the past 318 days in solitary confinement, even though she is not suicidal and even though no other inmate suffers such abuse. Ex. C, Doc. 256. The government responded, Ex. D, and although it previously intimated that Ms. Maxwell might be suicidal (she's not), it now said that the sleep deprivation was justified because she is housed alone, because of the nature of the charges, and because the case is high-profile. Not one of these reasons makes any sense upon any examination. The government did not provide an affidavit from anyone at the jail or explain why depriving Ms. Maxwell",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001409",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "jail"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 27, 2021",
      "05/17/2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "21-770",
      "70-1",
      "3102450",
      "Ex. A",
      "Ex. C",
      "Doc. 256",
      "Ex. D",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001409"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell's renewed motion for bond. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is page 3 of 14."
}