{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "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 13 of 34\nfor defamation for denying she had trafficked and abused Giuffre—were focused only on Epstein and not on Maxwell.\nDespite AUSA contemporaneous notes showing that the meeting very much concerned Maxwell, the government now claims that “the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell,” and that the discussion included only “passing references to Maxwell.” Resp. at 89 n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted with AUSA on February 11, 2021, five years after the February 29 meeting actually took place. Ex. K. This Court should reject the government’s revisionist history.\nThe best evidence of what happened on February 29, 2016—at least the best evidence the government has produced so far—is AUSA contemporaneous notes.8 Ex. J.; Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena because “contemporaneous statements of witnesses constitute best evidence”). Although the government attached these notes to its Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing instead to rely on AUSA 2021 recollection of what happened, Resp. at 62–66, 89 & n.39, 92 (citing Ex. 4).\n8 It appears the government does not actually want to know anything beyond what AUSA remembers (or doesn’t remember) of 2016. All the government did in response to Maxwell’s Motion was telephone AUSA The government apparently: (1) did not search its system for any and all emails from, to, or about David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA , such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with Giuffre’s attorneys.\nMost conspicuous, of course, is the government’s failure to interview AUSA or secure an affidavit from him. If this Court does not grant Maxwell’s Motion on the papers, only an evidentiary hearing can address these issues.\n8\nDOJ-OGR-00004148",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 13 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "for defamation for denying she had trafficked and abused Giuffre—were focused only on Epstein and not on Maxwell.\nDespite AUSA contemporaneous notes showing that the meeting very much concerned Maxwell, the government now claims that “the pitch was to investigate Epstein, not Maxwell,” and that the discussion included only “passing references to Maxwell.” Resp. at 89 n.39. The government bases this argument exclusively on a phone call prosecutors conducted with AUSA on February 11, 2021, five years after the February 29 meeting actually took place. Ex. K. This Court should reject the government’s revisionist history.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The best evidence of what happened on February 29, 2016—at least the best evidence the government has produced so far—is AUSA contemporaneous notes.8 Ex. J.; Abdell v. City of New York, No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF, 2006 WL 2664313, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 14, 2006) (denying motion to quash third-party subpoena because “contemporaneous statements of witnesses constitute best evidence”). Although the government attached these notes to its Response, Resp. Ex. 5, the government does not rely on them as part of its argument, choosing instead to rely on AUSA 2021 recollection of what happened, Resp. at 62–66, 89 & n.39, 92 (citing Ex. 4).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8 It appears the government does not actually want to know anything beyond what AUSA remembers (or doesn’t remember) of 2016. All the government did in response to Maxwell’s Motion was telephone AUSA The government apparently: (1) did not search its system for any and all emails from, to, or about David Boies, Sigrid McCawley, Stan Pottinger, Brad Edwards, or Peter Skinner; and (2) did not interview anyone other than AUSA , such as the other attendees of the meeting (Pottinger, Edwards, and Skinner), or any of the other AUSAs whom AUSA talked to about her contacts with Giuffre’s attorneys.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Most conspicuous, of course, is the government’s failure to interview AUSA or secure an affidavit from him. If this Court does not grant Maxwell’s Motion on the papers, only an evidentiary hearing can address these issues.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "8",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004148",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "AUSA",
      "David Boies",
      "Sigrid McCawley",
      "Stan Pottinger",
      "Brad Edwards",
      "Peter Skinner"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "February 29, 2016",
      "February 11, 2021",
      "September 14, 2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 285",
      "No. 05 CIV. 8453 KMK JCF"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the government's handling of evidence and witnesses in the case, and criticizes the government's approach as 'revisionist history.' The document includes citations to legal precedents and references to specific exhibits and responses."
}