{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "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 5 of 15\n\nPRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nThe only issue before the Court is whether conditions exist that can reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance during this case. On this renewed application, Ms. Maxwell has put before the Court a significant bail package, supported by detailed submissions, which warrant her release on strict conditions. She and her spouse have committed to signing a bond in the full amount of their net worth, regardless of the ownership of the underlying assets. She has proffered seven additional sureties, consisting of her family and close friends, many of whom are U.S. citizens and long-time residents, who have come forward at great personal risk and have pledged meaningful assets. The government does not challenge the good faith and bona fides of these proposed sureties. She has provided a detailed report from a respected accounting firm, which was further reviewed by a former IRS special agent, setting forth a statement of her financial condition, supported by voluminous documentation. The government does not challenge the report's findings, nor its underlying documentation. She has agreed, in writing, to give up any right she has or could have to contest extradition and submit to all other standard travel restrictions. And she has noted that a key representation made by the government at the initial bail hearing as to the strength of its evidence is simply not accurate — — and there is no \"significant contemporaneous documentary evidence\" that corroborates its case.\n\nWith regard to any other defendant, this record would readily support release on strict bail conditions, perhaps even on consent. But this is Ghislaine Maxwell, the apparent substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. So, instead, in its response the government urges the Court to disregard the significant additional evidence proffered to the Court and further argues that a defendant cannot be eligible for bail (apparently on any conditions), unless she can provide an absolute guarantee against all risks. But this is not the legal standard. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4,\n\nDOJ-OGR-00002211",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 103 Filed 12/23/20 Page 5 of 15",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "PRELIMINARY STATEMENT",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The only issue before the Court is whether conditions exist that can reasonably assure Ms. Maxwell's appearance during this case. On this renewed application, Ms. Maxwell has put before the Court a significant bail package, supported by detailed submissions, which warrant her release on strict conditions. She and her spouse have committed to signing a bond in the full amount of their net worth, regardless of the ownership of the underlying assets. She has proffered seven additional sureties, consisting of her family and close friends, many of whom are U.S. citizens and long-time residents, who have come forward at great personal risk and have pledged meaningful assets. The government does not challenge the good faith and bona fides of these proposed sureties. She has provided a detailed report from a respected accounting firm, which was further reviewed by a former IRS special agent, setting forth a statement of her financial condition, supported by voluminous documentation. The government does not challenge the report's findings, nor its underlying documentation. She has agreed, in writing, to give up any right she has or could have to contest extradition and submit to all other standard travel restrictions. And she has noted that a key representation made by the government at the initial bail hearing as to the strength of its evidence is simply not accurate — — and there is no \"significant contemporaneous documentary evidence\" that corroborates its case.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "With regard to any other defendant, this record would readily support release on strict bail conditions, perhaps even on consent. But this is Ghislaine Maxwell, the apparent substitute for Jeffrey Epstein. So, instead, in its response the government urges the Court to disregard the significant additional evidence proffered to the Court and further argues that a defendant cannot be eligible for bail (apparently on any conditions), unless she can provide an absolute guarantee against all risks. But this is not the legal standard. United States v. Orta, 760 F.2d 887, 888 n.4,",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002211",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "IRS"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "12/23/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 103",
      "760 F.2d 887",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002211"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with two redacted sections. The document discusses the issue of bail and the government's opposition to Maxwell's release."
}