{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "3",
    "document_number": "218",
    "date": "04/19/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 8\nThe Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 3\nsearches did not occur, witnesses were not interviewed. The government's modus operandi can be summed up in two words: \"willful blindness.\"\nConsistent with its \"willful blindness\" policy, the government has intentionally and methodically avoided obtaining substantial exculpatory evidence in the possession of third parties. By way of example, Alleged Victim 2 kept what she claimed was a contemporary journal of the events surrounding her meetings with Epstein. The \"journal\" does not mention Ms. Maxwell and contains no reference to any alleged sexual misconduct. The absence of any contemporaneous recording about Ms. Maxwell is powerful evidence of innocence.\nImportantly, it is the whole journal that is significant—that there are references to other contemporaneous events supplies context and detail about the paucity (or more accurately, absence) of Ms. Maxwell's involvement. When asked to produce the journal, the government's response was \"we don't have it.\" The same is true about other physical evidence, including boots, photographs, and documents.\nAlthough all the alleged victims in this matter have monetized their claims against Epstein and others, including Ms. Maxwell, the government has failed to investigate those financial gains or the lawyers fomenting them and their own self-interest in monetary outcomes. Again, this is powerful evidence of innocence.\nThe government, singularly focused on obtaining a conviction at any cost, has abandoned fair play and the pursuit of justice. Accordingly, it is Ms. Maxwell who must use the subpoena process to secure specific, necessary, relevant, and exculpatory evidence for a fair hearing on her motions and in presentation of her defense at trial. Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena is necessary to vindicate her constitutional right to present a defense. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (\"Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of\nDOJ-OGR-00003855",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 218 Filed 04/19/21 Page 3 of 8",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Hon. Alison J. Nathan\nApril 15, 2021\nPage 3",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "searches did not occur, witnesses were not interviewed. The government's modus operandi can be summed up in two words: \"willful blindness.\"",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Consistent with its \"willful blindness\" policy, the government has intentionally and methodically avoided obtaining substantial exculpatory evidence in the possession of third parties. By way of example, Alleged Victim 2 kept what she claimed was a contemporary journal of the events surrounding her meetings with Epstein. The \"journal\" does not mention Ms. Maxwell and contains no reference to any alleged sexual misconduct. The absence of any contemporaneous recording about Ms. Maxwell is powerful evidence of innocence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Importantly, it is the whole journal that is significant—that there are references to other contemporaneous events supplies context and detail about the paucity (or more accurately, absence) of Ms. Maxwell's involvement. When asked to produce the journal, the government's response was \"we don't have it.\" The same is true about other physical evidence, including boots, photographs, and documents.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although all the alleged victims in this matter have monetized their claims against Epstein and others, including Ms. Maxwell, the government has failed to investigate those financial gains or the lawyers fomenting them and their own self-interest in monetary outcomes. Again, this is powerful evidence of innocence.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government, singularly focused on obtaining a conviction at any cost, has abandoned fair play and the pursuit of justice. Accordingly, it is Ms. Maxwell who must use the subpoena process to secure specific, necessary, relevant, and exculpatory evidence for a fair hearing on her motions and in presentation of her defense at trial. Ms. Maxwell's Rule 17 subpoena is necessary to vindicate her constitutional right to present a defense. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (\"Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003855",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Alleged Victim 2"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Kentucky"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 15, 2021",
      "04/19/21",
      "1986"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 218",
      "476 U.S. 683",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003855"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with a focus on the government's handling of evidence and the defendant's right to a fair trial."
}