{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "213",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 213 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 8\n\nThe Indictment against Ms. Maxwell registers a 98 on the opacity chart. Instead of two alleged \"victims,\" the indictment here has different categories with three people being identified as \"Minor Victims,\" even though they are not minors. Additionally, an unknown number of unexplained categories of unidentified human beings appear in the Indictment: \"multiple minor girls,\" \"victims,\" \"minor victims,\" \"minor victims described herein,\" \"some of Epstein's minor victims,\" and \"multiple minor victims.\" It is a mystery if the government claims that these alleged people are the same, part of the alleged crime, or surplusage. Multiple \"among other thing\" and \"means and methods\" alleged acts are bandied about in the indictment such as: assisted, facilitated, contributed, recruit, groom, befriend, spending time, being present, help, etc.\n\nThis Indictment is subject to considerable interpretation and manipulation. Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare a defense without knowing who her accusers are and whether they are limited to the alleged \"Minor Victims\" or the rest of the universe.\n\n\"Second,\" the government relies on the general proposition that \"Courts in the Second Circuit have consistently upheld indictments containing a range of time rather than a specific date.\" Resp. at 154. Again, the cited cases are easily distinguishable. Kidd involved a date range ending in the year of indictment. Moreover, the quoted general language from Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 369, is incomplete. The court in Kidd explains the range it is referring to by the following reference: \"See United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that 'on or about June 1984' put a defendant on notice for potential crimes in July or early August of 1984 'because the [G]overnment is not required to prove the exact date, if a date reasonably near is established').\" Id. The government fails to include this language because it is inapposite to the suggestion that there is anything \"routine\" about a date range beginning 27",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 213 Filed 04/16/21 Page 3 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Indictment against Ms. Maxwell registers a 98 on the opacity chart. Instead of two alleged \"victims,\" the indictment here has different categories with three people being identified as \"Minor Victims,\" even though they are not minors. Additionally, an unknown number of unexplained categories of unidentified human beings appear in the Indictment: \"multiple minor girls,\" \"victims,\" \"minor victims,\" \"minor victims described herein,\" \"some of Epstein's minor victims,\" and \"multiple minor victims.\" It is a mystery if the government claims that these alleged people are the same, part of the alleged crime, or surplusage. Multiple \"among other thing\" and \"means and methods\" alleged acts are bandied about in the indictment such as: assisted, facilitated, contributed, recruit, groom, befriend, spending time, being present, help, etc.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This Indictment is subject to considerable interpretation and manipulation. Ms. Maxwell cannot prepare a defense without knowing who her accusers are and whether they are limited to the alleged \"Minor Victims\" or the rest of the universe.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"Second,\" the government relies on the general proposition that \"Courts in the Second Circuit have consistently upheld indictments containing a range of time rather than a specific date.\" Resp. at 154. Again, the cited cases are easily distinguishable. Kidd involved a date range ending in the year of indictment. Moreover, the quoted general language from Kidd, 386 F. Supp. 3d 364, 369, is incomplete. The court in Kidd explains the range it is referring to by the following reference: \"See United States v. Nersesian, 824 F.2d 1294, 1323 (2d Cir. 1987) (holding that 'on or about June 1984' put a defendant on notice for potential crimes in July or early August of 1984 'because the [G]overnment is not required to prove the exact date, if a date reasonably near is established').\" Id. The government fails to include this language because it is inapposite to the suggestion that there is anything \"routine\" about a date range beginning 27",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003835",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Courts in the Second Circuit",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "June 1984",
      "July 1984",
      "August 1984"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 213",
      "386 F. Supp. 3d 364",
      "824 F.2d 1294",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003835"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 8."
}