{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "285",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 34\n\nGhislaine Maxwell submits this reply in support of her Motion to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.\n\nIntroduction and Summary of the Argument\n\nIf the government meant to reassure this Court that nothing improper happened, its Response was anything but reassuring.\n\nThe government now confesses that it had significant and substantial contact with Virginia Giuffre's attorneys in 2016—while the Giuffre defamation suit against Maxwell was on-going—as part of an effort to instigate a criminal prosecution of Maxwell for allegedly trafficking Giuffre and others and then lying under oath. Doubling down on an increasingly farfetched story, however, the government insists that nothing improper occurred when it misrepresented these contacts to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York.\n\nContrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an ex parte proceeding, affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of her colleagues. The prosecutor then exploited the material he obtained to indict Maxwell.\n\nHad the prosecutor not affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, the government would never have obtained the 90,000 pages of material it now possesses, material that is central—indeed, essential—to its case against Maxwell. It would be the height of irony, not to mention injustice, to allow the government to convict Maxwell of testifying falsely when the government could not have indicted Maxwell but for the false statements it made to a federal judge.\n\n\"In a situation like this, the judiciary . . . may exercise its supervisory power to make it clear that the misconduct was serious, that the government's unwillingness to own up to it was more serious still, and that steps must be taken to avoid a recurrence of this chain of events.\"\n\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00004141",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 6 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ghislaine Maxwell submits this reply in support of her Motion to suppress all evidence the government obtained from a grand jury subpoena it issued to Boies Schiller Flexner LLP and to dismiss Counts Five and Six, which are the fruits of that unlawful subpoena.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Introduction and Summary of the Argument",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the government meant to reassure this Court that nothing improper happened, its Response was anything but reassuring.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government now confesses that it had significant and substantial contact with Virginia Giuffre's attorneys in 2016—while the Giuffre defamation suit against Maxwell was on-going—as part of an effort to instigate a criminal prosecution of Maxwell for allegedly trafficking Giuffre and others and then lying under oath. Doubling down on an increasingly farfetched story, however, the government insists that nothing improper occurred when it misrepresented these contacts to the Chief Judge of the Southern District of New York.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Contrary to the government's portrayal of events, what happened here is that a prosecutor from the public corruption unit of the United States Attorney's Office, in an ex parte proceeding, affirmatively misled Chief Judge McMahon to circumvent a Protective Order entered by one of her colleagues. The prosecutor then exploited the material he obtained to indict Maxwell.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Had the prosecutor not affirmatively misled Judge McMahon, the government would never have obtained the 90,000 pages of material it now possesses, material that is central—indeed, essential—to its case against Maxwell. It would be the height of irony, not to mention injustice, to allow the government to convict Maxwell of testifying falsely when the government could not have indicted Maxwell but for the false statements it made to a federal judge.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"In a situation like this, the judiciary . . . may exercise its supervisory power to make it clear that the misconduct was serious, that the government's unwillingness to own up to it was more serious still, and that steps must be taken to avoid a recurrence of this chain of events.\"",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004141",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Virginia Giuffre",
      "McMahon"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller Flexner LLP",
      "United States Attorney's Office"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21",
      "2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 285",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004141"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of 34."
}