{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "89",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 89 of 239\n\nNo. 1). In short, Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had defamed her when Maxwell stated that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had made those false statements for the “malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering as sex trafficking victims.” (Id. at 8).\n\n2. February 2016 Meeting\n\nAttorney Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller contacted AUSA-1, who was at that time the Human Trafficking and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator of the USAO-SDNY, to request an opportunity for him and other attorneys to meet with AUSA-1 to present on a potential case. (See Ex. 4 at 1).27 AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger—regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29\n\nAt the meeting, Edwards provided AUSA-1 with details about, among other things, the USAO-SDFL’s prior investigation of Epstein, as well as Giuffre’s personal history and experience with Epstein. (See Ex. 5). The focus of the meeting was on Epstein, and AUSA-1 understood that the attorneys were advocating that the USAO-SDNY open an investigation into Epstein. (See Ex.\n\n27 On February 11, 2021, to help gather facts relevant to the reporting contained in the New York Daily News article, the USAO-SDNY and the FBI conducted a telephonic interview of AUSA-1. Notes of that interview are attached as Exhibit 4.\n\n28 Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller is not listed on the docket as an attorney representing Giuffre.\n\n29 AUSA-1’s notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting are attached as Exhibit 5.\n\n62\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003023",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 89 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "No. 1). In short, Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had defamed her when Maxwell stated that Giuffre was not the victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell. Giuffre alleged that Maxwell had made those false statements for the “malicious purpose of further damaging a sexual abuse and sexual trafficking victim; to destroy Giuffre’s reputation and credibility; to cause the world to disbelieve Giuffre; and to destroy Giuffre’s efforts to use her experience to help others suffering as sex trafficking victims.” (Id. at 8).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2. February 2016 Meeting",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Attorney Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller contacted AUSA-1, who was at that time the Human Trafficking and Project Safe Childhood Coordinator of the USAO-SDNY, to request an opportunity for him and other attorneys to meet with AUSA-1 to present on a potential case. (See Ex. 4 at 1).27 AUSA-1 agreed to the meeting, and on or about February 29, 2016, AUSA-1 met with three attorneys—Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller, Brad Edwards, and Stan Pottinger—regarding Jeffrey Epstein. (See Ex. 4 at 1). Edwards and Pottinger were also attorneys for Virginia Roberts Giuffre, who had alleged that she is a victim of sex crimes perpetrated by Epstein and Maxwell.28 (Ex. 5 at 1).29",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At the meeting, Edwards provided AUSA-1 with details about, among other things, the USAO-SDFL’s prior investigation of Epstein, as well as Giuffre’s personal history and experience with Epstein. (See Ex. 5). The focus of the meeting was on Epstein, and AUSA-1 understood that the attorneys were advocating that the USAO-SDNY open an investigation into Epstein. (See Ex.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "27 On February 11, 2021, to help gather facts relevant to the reporting contained in the New York Daily News article, the USAO-SDNY and the FBI conducted a telephonic interview of AUSA-1. Notes of that interview are attached as Exhibit 4.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "28 Peter Skinner of Boies Schiller is not listed on the docket as an attorney representing Giuffre.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "29 AUSA-1’s notes from the February 29, 2016 meeting are attached as Exhibit 5.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "62",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003023",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Giuffre",
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Peter Skinner",
      "Brad Edwards",
      "Stan Pottinger",
      "Virginia Roberts Giuffre",
      "AUSA-1"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "USAO-SDNY",
      "FBI",
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 2016",
      "February 29, 2016",
      "February 11, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "Exhibit 4",
      "Exhibit 5",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003023"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. It discusses a meeting between attorneys and a representative from the USAO-SDNY regarding Jeffrey Epstein. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}