{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "6",
    "document_number": "146",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 16\nconduct that allegedly took place more than two decades ago—accusations so vague that they do not even link Ms. Maxwell to the only specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 in the indictment (see Indictment ¶¶ 11b, 17b).\nTo try to bolster its case, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein’s alleged “sexual abuse” of two other individuals, Accuser-2 and Accuser-3, and has included allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell’s interactions with these two individuals in the indictment. But the allegations as to Accuser-3 cannot possibly support the charges against Ms. Maxwell: Although the gravamen of a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) offense is enticing or causing an individual to travel, there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled—let alone that Ms. Maxwell (or Epstein, for that matter) enticed her to do so or transported her. Moreover, although both § 2422(a) and § 2423(a) require an intent that the traveling individual engage in unlawful sexual activity, the indictment alleges no facts suggesting that Epstein’s alleged sexual activity with Accuser-3, who was over the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, was unlawful. As a result, these allegations serve only to demonstrate a propensity on the part of Ms. Maxwell that will prejudice the jury against her.\nTo enable the presentation of evidence regarding Accuser-3, the government claims the alleged “sexual abuse” of Accuser-3 is somehow an “overt act” in furtherance of conspiracies to cause unspecified individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. The government’s inclusion of these allegations, however, is nothing more than an attempted end-run around its obligations under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The “overt act” alleged as to Accuser-3 has nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 be stricken as surplusage, or in the alternative, that the",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 146 Filed 02/04/21 Page 6 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "conduct that allegedly took place more than two decades ago—accusations so vague that they do not even link Ms. Maxwell to the only specific allegation of travel by Accuser-1 in the indictment (see Indictment ¶¶ 11b, 17b).\nTo try to bolster its case, the government alleges that Ms. Maxwell was complicit in Epstein’s alleged “sexual abuse” of two other individuals, Accuser-2 and Accuser-3, and has included allegations regarding Ms. Maxwell’s interactions with these two individuals in the indictment. But the allegations as to Accuser-3 cannot possibly support the charges against Ms. Maxwell: Although the gravamen of a § 2422(a) or § 2423(a) offense is enticing or causing an individual to travel, there is no allegation that Accuser-3 ever traveled—let alone that Ms. Maxwell (or Epstein, for that matter) enticed her to do so or transported her. Moreover, although both § 2422(a) and § 2423(a) require an intent that the traveling individual engage in unlawful sexual activity, the indictment alleges no facts suggesting that Epstein’s alleged sexual activity with Accuser-3, who was over the legal age of consent in England at all relevant times, was unlawful. As a result, these allegations serve only to demonstrate a propensity on the part of Ms. Maxwell that will prejudice the jury against her.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "To enable the presentation of evidence regarding Accuser-3, the government claims the alleged “sexual abuse” of Accuser-3 is somehow an “overt act” in furtherance of conspiracies to cause unspecified individuals to travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activity. The government’s inclusion of these allegations, however, is nothing more than an attempted end-run around its obligations under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). The “overt act” alleged as to Accuser-3 has nothing to do with the alleged conspiracy. Moreover, the allegations regarding Accuser-3 are unduly prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell. Accordingly, Ms. Maxwell requests that the allegations regarding Accuser-3 be stricken as surplusage, or in the alternative, that the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00002681",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Accuser-1",
      "Accuser-2",
      "Accuser-3"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "England"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 146",
      "¶¶ 11b, 17b",
      "§ 2422(a)",
      "§ 2423(a)",
      "Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002681"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ms. Maxwell, discussing allegations and legal arguments. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
}