{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "388",
    "date": "10/29/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 388 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 14\n\nmorning of her arrest, which had nothing to do with evading capture by law enforcement. See id., Ex. S ¶¶ 4-13. This individual stated that he had spoken to the security guard who was on duty with Ms. Maxwell that morning. Id. ¶ 7. The security guard reported that he had seen a helicopter flying above the property in the early morning hours and assumed it was the press. Id. Believing that the press had discovered the property, the head of the security company instructed the security guard to prepare Ms. Maxwell to move to a safe room in the event that the perimeter of the property were breached. Id. Roughly two hours later, the security guard saw vehicles approaching the residence and again assumed they were members of the press, not FBI agents. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. He radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that members of the press were on the grounds and approaching the house. Id. ¶ 9. Ms. Maxwell then followed a pre-established safety protocol that she had been instructed to follow in the event that her security was threatened while she was inside the residence. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Pursuant to the protocol, Ms. Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. Id. Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest; she was simply following the established security protocols to protect herself from what she had been informed was an ambush by the press.\n\nRegarding the cellphone wrapped in tin foil, we explained at the initial bail hearing and in Ms. Maxwell's second bail application that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone after the Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed certain court records with the phone number unredacted. See 12/14/2020 Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for Bail (Dkt. 97) at 24. Moreover, the cell phone was subscribed in the name of Ms. Maxwell's charity and was therefore easily traceable to Ms. Maxwell. See id. at 24-25.\n\nIn sum, the government cannot establish a sufficient factual predicate to argue that Ms. Maxwell's actions were evidence of flight, much less evidence of consciousness of guilt. Ms.\n\n4\n\nDOJ-OGR-00005694",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 388 Filed 10/29/21 Page 7 of 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "morning of her arrest, which had nothing to do with evading capture by law enforcement. See id., Ex. S ¶¶ 4-13. This individual stated that he had spoken to the security guard who was on duty with Ms. Maxwell that morning. Id. ¶ 7. The security guard reported that he had seen a helicopter flying above the property in the early morning hours and assumed it was the press. Id. Believing that the press had discovered the property, the head of the security company instructed the security guard to prepare Ms. Maxwell to move to a safe room in the event that the perimeter of the property were breached. Id. Roughly two hours later, the security guard saw vehicles approaching the residence and again assumed they were members of the press, not FBI agents. Id. ¶¶ 8-9. He radioed Ms. Maxwell to alert her that members of the press were on the grounds and approaching the house. Id. ¶ 9. Ms. Maxwell then followed a pre-established safety protocol that she had been instructed to follow in the event that her security was threatened while she was inside the residence. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. Pursuant to the protocol, Ms. Maxwell moved away from the windows and into a safe room inside the house. Id. Ms. Maxwell was not trying to avoid arrest; she was simply following the established security protocols to protect herself from what she had been informed was an ambush by the press.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Regarding the cellphone wrapped in tin foil, we explained at the initial bail hearing and in Ms. Maxwell's second bail application that Ms. Maxwell took this step to prevent the press from accessing her phone after the Second Circuit inadvertently unsealed certain court records with the phone number unredacted. See 12/14/2020 Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Renewed Mot. for Bail (Dkt. 97) at 24. Moreover, the cell phone was subscribed in the name of Ms. Maxwell's charity and was therefore easily traceable to Ms. Maxwell. See id. at 24-25.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, the government cannot establish a sufficient factual predicate to argue that Ms. Maxwell's actions were evidence of flight, much less evidence of consciousness of guilt. Ms.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005694",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/29/21",
      "12/14/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 388",
      "Dkt. 97"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 7 of 14."
}