{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "73",
    "date": "08/05/25",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 2 of 4\n\nHonorable Richard M. Berman\nCase No: 19 CR 490 (RMB)\nPage 2\n\n- The right to be reasonably protected from the accused (§ 3771(a)(1));\n- The right to be heard at any public proceeding involving release, parole, or sentencing (§ 3771(a)(3));\n- The right to confer with the attorney for the Government (§ 3771(a)(5)); and,\n- The right to be treated with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy (§ 3771(a)(8)).\n\nSee also Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2006) (fairness and dignity are substantive, enforceable rights); In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394-95 (5th Cir. 2008) (government must confer with victims before making consequential case decisions); In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (confirming that CVRA protections are fully attached post-conviction).\n\nGiven our history fighting for the enforcement of the CVRA on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein's many victims, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury materials before this Court without first conferring with the victims or their counsel, a step required by the CVRA and reinforced by Doe v. United States, 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.). That case, litigated pro bono by undersigned counsel for more than a decade, arose precisely because the government previously violated the rights of many of these very same victims. It is especially troubling that, despite the outcome of that litigation, the government has once again proceeded in a manner that disregards the victims' rights—suggesting that the hard-learned lessons of the past have not taken hold. This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are, at best, an afterthought to the current administration.\n\nOf significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to believe that additional individuals—whom we also represent—were not identified to us by the government.\n\nIt remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released.\n\nAgainst this backdrop, any disclosure of grand jury material—especially material that could expose or help identify victims in any way—directly affects the CVRA's fairness, privacy, conferral, and protection guarantees. To ensure those rights are protected, it is essential that the protocol outlined in the relief requested below is adopted by this Court.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00000772",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 73 Filed 08/05/25 Page 2 of 4\n\nHonorable Richard M. Berman\nCase No: 19 CR 490 (RMB)\nPage 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The right to be reasonably protected from the accused (§ 3771(a)(1));\n- The right to be heard at any public proceeding involving release, parole, or sentencing (§ 3771(a)(3));\n- The right to confer with the attorney for the Government (§ 3771(a)(5)); and,\n- The right to be treated with fairness and respect for dignity and privacy (§ 3771(a)(8)).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "See also Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016-17 (9th Cir. 2006) (fairness and dignity are substantive, enforceable rights); In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391, 394-95 (5th Cir. 2008) (government must confer with victims before making consequential case decisions); In re Wild, 994 F.3d 1244 (11th Cir. 2021) (en banc) (confirming that CVRA protections are fully attached post-conviction).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Given our history fighting for the enforcement of the CVRA on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein's many victims, we were quite surprised to learn that the government sought the unsealing of grand jury materials before this Court without first conferring with the victims or their counsel, a step required by the CVRA and reinforced by Doe v. United States, 08-80736 (S.D. Fla.). That case, litigated pro bono by undersigned counsel for more than a decade, arose precisely because the government previously violated the rights of many of these very same victims. It is especially troubling that, despite the outcome of that litigation, the government has once again proceeded in a manner that disregards the victims' rights—suggesting that the hard-learned lessons of the past have not taken hold. This omission reinforces the perception that the victims are, at best, an afterthought to the current administration.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Of significant concern, the same government that failed to provide notice to the victims before moving this Court to unseal the grand jury materials is now the government representing to this Court that it has provided appropriate notice to the victims or their counsel and has conducted a proper review and redaction of the materials it seeks to release. Several clients have contacted us expressing deep anxiety over whether the redactions were in fact adequate. Consequently, we requested yesterday that the government identify which of our clients were referenced to the grand jury. The government responded promptly and provided clarification. However, we have strong reason to believe that additional individuals—whom we also represent—were not identified to us by the government.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "It remains unclear whether notice was instead provided to prior counsel, whether their omission was a government oversight, whether the government does not consider them to be victims, or whether these individuals were, in fact, not mentioned to the grand jury. Regardless of the explanation, this ambiguity raises a serious issue that must be resolved before any materials are publicly released.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Against this backdrop, any disclosure of grand jury material—especially material that could expose or help identify victims in any way—directly affects the CVRA's fairness, privacy, conferral, and protection guarantees. To ensure those rights are protected, it is essential that the protocol outlined in the relief requested below is adopted by this Court.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000772",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Richard M. Berman",
      "Jeffrey Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Dist. Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D. Fla."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/05/25"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "19 CR 490 (RMB)",
      "08-80736",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000772"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Jeffrey Epstein, discussing the rights of victims under the CVRA and concerns regarding the unsealing of grand jury materials."
}