actually the last one before bed

processing_index.json

@@ -11070,7 +11070,534 @@
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011295.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011296.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011297.jpg",
-    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011299.jpg"
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011298.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011299.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011300.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011301.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011302.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011303.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011304.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011305.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011306.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011307.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011308.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011309.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011310.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011311.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011312.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011313.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011314.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011315.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011316.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011317.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011318.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011319.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011320.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011321.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011322.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011323.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011324.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011325.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011326.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011327.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011328.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011329.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011330.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011331.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011332.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011333.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011334.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011335.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011336.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011337.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011338.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011339.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011340.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011341.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011342.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011343.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011344.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011345.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011346.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011347.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011348.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011349.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011350.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011351.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011352.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011353.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011354.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011355.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011356.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011357.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011358.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011359.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011360.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011361.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011362.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011363.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011364.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011365.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011366.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011367.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011368.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011369.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011370.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011371.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011372.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011373.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011374.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011375.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011376.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011377.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011378.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011379.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011380.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011381.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011382.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011383.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011384.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011385.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011386.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011387.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011388.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011389.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011390.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011391.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011392.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011393.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011394.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011395.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011396.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011397.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011398.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011399.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011400.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011401.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011402.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011403.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011404.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011405.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011406.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011407.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011408.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011409.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011410.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011411.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011412.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011413.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011414.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011415.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011416.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011417.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011418.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011419.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011420.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011421.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011422.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011423.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011424.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011425.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011426.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011427.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011428.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011429.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011430.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011431.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011432.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011433.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011434.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011435.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011436.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011437.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011438.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011439.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011440.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011441.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011442.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011443.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011444.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011445.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011446.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011447.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011448.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011449.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011450.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011451.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011452.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011453.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011454.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011455.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011456.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011457.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011458.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011459.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011460.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011461.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011462.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011463.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011464.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011465.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011466.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011467.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011468.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011469.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011470.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011471.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011472.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011473.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011474.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011475.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011476.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011477.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011478.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011479.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011480.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011481.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011482.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011483.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011484.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011485.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011486.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011487.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011488.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011489.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011490.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011491.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011492.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011493.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011494.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011495.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011496.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011497.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011498.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011499.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011500.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011501.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011502.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011503.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011504.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011505.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011506.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011507.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011508.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011509.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011510.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011511.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011512.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011513.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011514.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011515.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011516.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011517.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011518.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011519.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011520.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011521.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011522.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011523.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011524.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011525.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011526.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011527.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011528.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011529.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011530.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011531.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011532.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011533.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011534.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011535.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011536.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011537.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011538.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011539.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011540.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011541.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011542.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011543.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011544.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011545.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011546.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011547.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011548.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011549.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011550.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011551.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011552.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011553.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011554.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011555.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011556.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011557.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011558.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011559.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011560.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011561.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011562.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011563.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011564.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011565.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011566.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011567.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011568.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011569.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011570.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011571.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011572.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011573.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011574.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011575.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011576.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011577.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011578.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011579.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011580.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011581.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011582.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011583.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011584.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011585.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011586.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011587.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011588.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011589.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011590.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011591.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011592.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011593.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011594.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011595.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011596.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011597.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011598.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011599.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011600.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011601.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011602.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011603.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011604.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011605.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011606.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011607.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011608.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011609.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011610.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011611.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011612.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011613.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011614.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011615.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011616.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011617.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011618.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011619.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011620.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011621.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011622.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011623.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011624.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011625.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011626.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011627.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011628.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011629.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011630.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011631.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011632.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011633.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011634.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011635.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011636.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011637.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011638.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011639.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011640.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011641.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011642.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011643.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011644.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011645.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011646.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011647.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011648.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011649.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011650.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011651.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011652.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011653.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011654.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011655.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011656.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011657.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011658.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011659.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011660.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011661.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011662.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011663.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011664.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011665.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011666.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011667.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011668.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011669.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011670.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011671.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011672.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011673.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011674.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011675.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011676.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011677.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011678.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011679.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011680.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011681.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011682.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011683.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011684.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011685.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011686.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011687.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011688.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011689.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011690.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011691.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011692.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011693.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011694.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011695.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011696.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011697.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011698.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011699.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011700.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011701.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011702.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011703.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011704.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011705.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011706.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011707.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011708.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011709.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011710.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011711.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011712.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011713.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011714.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011715.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011716.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011717.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011718.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011719.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011720.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011721.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011722.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011723.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011724.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011725.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011726.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011727.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011728.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011729.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011730.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011731.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011732.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011733.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011734.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011735.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011736.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011737.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011738.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011739.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011740.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011741.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011742.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011743.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011744.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011745.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011746.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011747.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011748.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011749.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011750.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011751.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011752.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011753.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011754.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011755.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011756.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011757.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011758.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011759.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011760.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011761.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011762.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011763.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011764.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011765.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011766.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011767.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011768.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011769.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011770.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011771.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011772.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011773.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011774.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011775.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011776.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011777.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011778.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011779.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011780.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011781.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011782.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011783.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011784.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011785.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011786.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011787.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011788.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011789.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011790.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011791.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011792.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011793.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011794.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011795.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011796.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011797.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011798.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011799.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011800.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011801.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011802.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011803.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011804.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011805.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011806.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011807.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011808.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011809.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011810.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011811.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011812.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011813.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011814.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011815.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011816.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011817.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011818.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011819.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011820.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011821.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011822.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011823.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011824.jpg",
+    "IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00011826.jpg"
   ],
   "last_updated": "/Users/nickp/code/files"
 }

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011298.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "711",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 711 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 11\ngenitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers. sustained an objection to the introduction of some of these statements on page 2186. that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not. 2195:10 - 17 3514-012, p. 2, ¾ way down At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot. This entry is part of the entry three rows above. The Government objects for the same reasons. Government allowed to put on evidence that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not. 2197:23 - 2198: 3514-001 Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\" Objection. This is not a contradictory omission. To the extent it is, the witness was not confronted with 3514-001 on this point. FRE 613(a) does not require showing the statement. 2209:19 - 2213:5 3514-001 Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted Objection. The Court already sustained the objection to the question about whether Annie told the agent that she wanted Epstein prosecuted. And Nesbitt Kuyrkendall declaration said that all witnesses she interviewed in 2006-2008 did not want Epstein Epstein 10 DOJ-OGR-00011298",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 711 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 11",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "genitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers. sustained an objection to the introduction of some of these statements on page 2186. that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2195:10 - 17 3514-012, p. 2, ¾ way down At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot. This entry is part of the entry three rows above. The Government objects for the same reasons. Government allowed to put on evidence that the massages were \"sexualized\" in re-direct, although witness had earlier told the government they were not.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2197:23 - 2198: 3514-001 Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\" Objection. This is not a contradictory omission. To the extent it is, the witness was not confronted with 3514-001 on this point. FRE 613(a) does not require showing the statement.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2209:19 - 2213:5 3514-001 Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted Objection. The Court already sustained the objection to the question about whether Annie told the agent that she wanted Epstein prosecuted. And Nesbitt Kuyrkendall declaration said that all witnesses she interviewed in 2006-2008 did not want Epstein Epstein",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10 DOJ-OGR-00011298",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "JE",
+      "GM",
+      "Annie",
+      "Epstein",
+      "Nesbitt Kuyrkendall"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "2006",
+      "2008"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "711",
+      "3514-012",
+      "3514-001",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011298"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or a legal document related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content is related to witness testimony and objections raised during a trial or hearing."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011300.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "713",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 December 17, 2021 BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government writes in opposition to the defendant's motion for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino. It is not clear that Bovino is under subpoena for the same reasons Robert Glassman has previously articulated.1 Assuming she is, however, the defense letter correctly states that the Court \"has authority\" to issue an arrest warrant. (Def. Letter at 2-3). But the Court is not required to do so, and in this case, the Court should exercise its discretion to not sign the arrest warrant. The defendant has been aware of the 3500 material that forms the basis of the defendant's 1 The defense subpoena was served on November 30, 2021, (see Def. Letter Ex. 2), but it required her to appear at the United States Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. on November 29, 2021 (see id. Ex. 1)— an impossibility. The defense has cited no law for the proposition that Bovino has refused to \"comply with an order of the court to testify,\" 28 U.S.C. § 1826, by failing to comply with a subpoena with which she could never have complied. 1 DOJ-OGR-00011300",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 December 17, 2021",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: The Government writes in opposition to the defendant's motion for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino. It is not clear that Bovino is under subpoena for the same reasons Robert Glassman has previously articulated.1 Assuming she is, however, the defense letter correctly states that the Court \"has authority\" to issue an arrest warrant. (Def. Letter at 2-3). But the Court is not required to do so, and in this case, the Court should exercise its discretion to not sign the arrest warrant. The defendant has been aware of the 3500 material that forms the basis of the defendant's",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 The defense subpoena was served on November 30, 2021, (see Def. Letter Ex. 2), but it required her to appear at the United States Courthouse at 9:00 a.m. on November 29, 2021 (see id. Ex. 1)— an impossibility. The defense has cited no law for the proposition that Bovino has refused to \"comply with an order of the court to testify,\" 28 U.S.C. § 1826, by failing to comply with a subpoena with which she could never have complied.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011300",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Robert Glassman"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "November 30, 2021",
+      "November 29, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 713",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "28 U.S.C. § 1826",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011300"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is dated December 17, 2021, and is in opposition to the defendant's motion for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino. The document contains a stamp with the number DOJ-OGR-00011300."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011302.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "713",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 4\n\nthat the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to permit the witness to be brought to trial.\" Id.; see also Untied States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 74 (1st Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and granting a motion to transport but refusing to order the Marshals to expedite it and denying a continuance because the request was \"quite belated[]\").\n\nAdditionally, Bovino's testimony is in no way vital. The defendant articulated a theory of relevance in her opposition to the Government's motion to preclude, and it is the same theory that the defendant articulated as to two other witnesses. The defendant will suffer no significant prejudice by denial of her motion.\n\nFinally, what the defendant posits is no mere delay until Monday. What the defendant suggests is to direct the Marshals Service to arrest a defendant located in California, detain her, fly her across the country, and possibly arrange counsel for her, all so that she may provide a few minutes of testimony. Under the unique facts of this case—a lengthy trial in the middle of a global pandemic, with looming extended breaks for two holidays—an arrest warrant would likely cause significant delay and risk to the trial. The defendant's eleventh-hour request for such an extended delay is not justified under these circumstances.\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00011302",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that the district court abused its discretion in denying a continuance to permit the witness to be brought to trial.\" Id.; see also Untied States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 74 (1st Cir. 2008) (collecting cases and granting a motion to transport but refusing to order the Marshals to expedite it and denying a continuance because the request was \"quite belated[]\").",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Additionally, Bovino's testimony is in no way vital. The defendant articulated a theory of relevance in her opposition to the Government's motion to preclude, and it is the same theory that the defendant articulated as to two other witnesses. The defendant will suffer no significant prejudice by denial of her motion.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, what the defendant posits is no mere delay until Monday. What the defendant suggests is to direct the Marshals Service to arrest a defendant located in California, detain her, fly her across the country, and possibly arrange counsel for her, all so that she may provide a few minutes of testimony. Under the unique facts of this case—a lengthy trial in the middle of a global pandemic, with looming extended breaks for two holidays—an arrest warrant would likely cause significant delay and risk to the trial. The defendant's eleventh-hour request for such an extended delay is not justified under these circumstances.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011302",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Marshals Service"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "California"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "Monday"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 713",
+      "530 F.3d 36",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011302"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 4."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011303.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "713",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4 Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail) 4 DOJ-OGR-00011303",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 713 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted, DAMIAN WILLIAMS United States Attorney By: s/ Maurene Comey Alison Moe Lara Pomerantz Andrew Rohrbach Assistant United States Attorneys Southern District of New York Cc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011303",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Damian Williams",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "713",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011303"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and a cc section. The text is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011304.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "714",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 21, 2021 BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding the proposed limiting instructions in the Court's order regarding Witness-3. (See Dkt. No. 477). The Government proposes one edit to the instruction in advance of Witness-3's testimony. Specifically, the Government proposes inserting the word \"solely\" in the sentence beginning \"However,\" as follows: However, you may not convict the Defendant solely on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein. This edit clarifies a potential tension within the instruction. As the Court has ruled, evidence relating to Witness-3 is relevant to the issues, but cannot on its own support a conviction. Absent this clarification, it may appear to the jurors that they \"may not convict the Defendant on the basis of [Witness-3]'s testimony,\" i.e., the testimony is not offered as relevant evidence the 1 DOJ-OGR-00011304",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 21, 2021",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY E-MAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter regarding the proposed limiting instructions in the Court's order regarding Witness-3. (See Dkt. No. 477). The Government proposes one edit to the instruction in advance of Witness-3's testimony. Specifically, the Government proposes inserting the word \"solely\" in the sentence beginning \"However,\" as follows: However, you may not convict the Defendant solely on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein. This edit clarifies a potential tension within the instruction. As the Court has ruled, evidence relating to Witness-3 is relevant to the issues, but cannot on its own support a conviction. Absent this clarification, it may appear to the jurors that they \"may not convict the Defendant on the basis of [Witness-3]'s testimony,\" i.e., the testimony is not offered as relevant evidence the",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011304",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Witness-3",
+      "Mr. Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 21, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 714",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 477",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011304"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter discusses proposed limiting instructions related to Witness-3's testimony. The document is stamped with the U.S. Department of Justice seal and includes a footer with a document ID."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011310.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "714",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7\nlaw, avoids incorrectly suggesting that the entirety of the witness's testimony will describe events that took place after the witness reached the age of consent, and avoids prejudice to the Government from an unbalanced instruction. In the Government's view, however, any concern that jurors will mistakenly think they should convict on the basis of some violation of another state's laws is best addressed in the concluding jury instructions. Such instructions will make the most sense to the jurors once they have heard all the facts and been instructed regarding the elements of each offense charged in the Indictment.\nRespectfully submitted,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York\nCc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)\nDOJ-OGR-00011310",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 714 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "law, avoids incorrectly suggesting that the entirety of the witness's testimony will describe events that took place after the witness reached the age of consent, and avoids prejudice to the Government from an unbalanced instruction. In the Government's view, however, any concern that jurors will mistakenly think they should convict on the basis of some violation of another state's laws is best addressed in the concluding jury instructions. Such instructions will make the most sense to the jurors once they have heard all the facts and been instructed regarding the elements of each offense charged in the Indictment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011310",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Damian Williams",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "714",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011310"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011311.json

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "715",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 8\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 6, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nI write in response to the government's untimely disclosure of expert opinion testimony to be offered by Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Computer Analysis Response Team. As explained below, this Court should preclude Examiner Flatley from offering the newly-disclosed expert opinion testimony—everything newly disclosed in the November 26 disclosure, the December 3 email, or the December 5 email.\nBACKGROUND\nOn September 15, the government wrote to Ms. Maxwell's counsel to describe the testimony it expected to elicit from Examiner Flatley. The government insisted Examiner Flatley would not offer expert opinions. Instead, the government claimed Examiner Flatley would offer fact testimony about the steps he took to extract and clone certain devices seized under a search warrant. This was the full description of the expected testimony:\nThe Government anticipates that, if called as a witness, Examiner Flatley will testify about his extraction of devices seized pursuant to court-authorized search warrant.\nDOJ-OGR-00011311",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 6, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I write in response to the government's untimely disclosure of expert opinion testimony to be offered by Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Computer Analysis Response Team. As explained below, this Court should preclude Examiner Flatley from offering the newly-disclosed expert opinion testimony—everything newly disclosed in the November 26 disclosure, the December 3 email, or the December 5 email.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BACKGROUND\nOn September 15, the government wrote to Ms. Maxwell's counsel to describe the testimony it expected to elicit from Examiner Flatley. The government insisted Examiner Flatley would not offer expert opinions. Instead, the government claimed Examiner Flatley would offer fact testimony about the steps he took to extract and clone certain devices seized under a search warrant. This was the full description of the expected testimony:\nThe Government anticipates that, if called as a witness, Examiner Flatley will testify about his extraction of devices seized pursuant to court-authorized search warrant.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011311",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Stephen Flatley"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Federal Bureau of Investigation"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 6, 2021",
+      "September 15",
+      "November 26",
+      "December 3",
+      "December 5",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011311",
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "715"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and has a professional tone. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011316.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "715",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 6\nThe government did not timely disclose Examiner Flatley's expert opinions, waiting until November 26, December 3, and late last night to make the disclosures. Under Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2), this Court can exclude these opinions.\nRule 16(d)(2) says:\n(2) Failure to Comply. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may:\n(A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and describe other just terms and conditions;\n(B) grant a continuance;\n(C) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or\n(D) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.\nFed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2).\n\"[T]he government . . . violate[s] Rule 16 if it . . . call[s] expert witnesses who were not timely disclosed.\" United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).\n\"When the government has failed to comply with Rule 16, the district court has broad discretion to determine what remedial action, if any, is appropriate.\" United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 681 (2d Cir. 1997). \"It is well-settled that a court may in its discretion preclude expert examination pursuant to Rule 16(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding any topics or opinions not properly disclosed.\" United States v. Mahaffy, No. 05CR613(S-3)(ILG), 2007 WL 1213738, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007). \"A court may preclude the testimony as a whole, or any part that it determines was not properly disclosed to the [defense].\" Id. \"Even if the disclosure provides a sufficient summary of any opinions to be offered by the witness, it may be excluded if the [party] has made no attempt at all to describe the bases and reasons for those opinions.\" Id.\nDOJ-OGR-00011316",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government did not timely disclose Examiner Flatley's expert opinions, waiting until November 26, December 3, and late last night to make the disclosures. Under Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(d)(2), this Court can exclude these opinions.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Rule 16(d)(2) says:\n(2) Failure to Comply. If a party fails to comply with this rule, the court may:\n(A) order that party to permit the discovery or inspection; specify its time, place, and manner; and describe other just terms and conditions;\n(B) grant a continuance;\n(C) prohibit that party from introducing the undisclosed evidence; or\n(D) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"[T]he government . . . violate[s] Rule 16 if it . . . call[s] expert witnesses who were not timely disclosed.\" United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 516 (9th Cir. 2008) (en banc).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"When the government has failed to comply with Rule 16, the district court has broad discretion to determine what remedial action, if any, is appropriate.\" United States v. Miller, 116 F.3d 641, 681 (2d Cir. 1997). \"It is well-settled that a court may in its discretion preclude expert examination pursuant to Rule 16(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding any topics or opinions not properly disclosed.\" United States v. Mahaffy, No. 05CR613(S-3)(ILG), 2007 WL 1213738, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 24, 2007). \"A court may preclude the testimony as a whole, or any part that it determines was not properly disclosed to the [defense].\" Id. \"Even if the disclosure provides a sufficient summary of any opinions to be offered by the witness, it may be excluded if the [party] has made no attempt at all to describe the bases and reasons for those opinions.\" Id.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011316",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Examiner Flatley"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 6, 2021",
+      "November 26",
+      "December 3",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "Apr. 24, 2007"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 715",
+      "05CR613(S-3)(ILG)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011316"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011317.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "715",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 7\nThis Court should preclude the government from eliciting Examiner Flatley's expert opinion. As this Court explained to the government at the pretrial conference when Ms. Maxwell first raised this issue with the Court:\nWell, I mean, [the government's] notice should provide the opinions that [Examiner Flatley's] going to offer. . . .\nIt's not a scavenger hunt. You're required, as the first matter, to provide, pursuant to Rule 16, the opinions that he's going to offer.\n. . .\nIf your notice is insufficient under Rule 16 to tell us now what opinions your expert is going to provide, then you may have problems down the road. But I'm not going to have [Ms. Maxwell] held to a different standard than what the government has done here.\nTR 11/23/2021, p 25-26.\nIt is clear that Examiner Flatley is no longer merely providing a factual narrative of what he did in this case. Based on his specialized training and experience, he's defining and explaining the significance of technical terms and concepts for the jury, and he is using reasoning unfamiliar to lay individuals to describe his analyses for, and to impart his conclusions to, the jury.\nMs. Maxwell has been preparing for the testimony of other witnesses and briefing other issues, and she has not had sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of Examiner Flatley. The government's disclosure comes far too late, it's prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and the testimony should be excluded.\nDOJ-OGR-00011317",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 7",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should preclude the government from eliciting Examiner Flatley's expert opinion. As this Court explained to the government at the pretrial conference when Ms. Maxwell first raised this issue with the Court:\nWell, I mean, [the government's] notice should provide the opinions that [Examiner Flatley's] going to offer. . . .\nIt's not a scavenger hunt. You're required, as the first matter, to provide, pursuant to Rule 16, the opinions that he's going to offer.\n. . .\nIf your notice is insufficient under Rule 16 to tell us now what opinions your expert is going to provide, then you may have problems down the road. But I'm not going to have [Ms. Maxwell] held to a different standard than what the government has done here.\nTR 11/23/2021, p 25-26.\nIt is clear that Examiner Flatley is no longer merely providing a factual narrative of what he did in this case. Based on his specialized training and experience, he's defining and explaining the significance of technical terms and concepts for the jury, and he is using reasoning unfamiliar to lay individuals to describe his analyses for, and to impart his conclusions to, the jury.\nMs. Maxwell has been preparing for the testimony of other witnesses and briefing other issues, and she has not had sufficient time to prepare for the cross-examination of Examiner Flatley. The government's disclosure comes far too late, it's prejudicial to Ms. Maxwell, and the testimony should be excluded.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011317",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Examiner Flatley",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "government",
+      "jury"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 6, 2021",
+      "11/23/2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 715",
+      "TR 11/23/2021, p 25-26",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011317"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011318.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "715",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 8\nCONCLUSION\nThis Court should restrict Examiner Flatley's testimony to the fact-based narrative originally disclosed in the September 15 letter and preclude him from testifying to any expert opinions first disclosed in the November 26 letter or the December 3 or 5 emails.\nRespectfully submitted,\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\nDOJ-OGR-00011318",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 715 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 6, 2021\nPage 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CONCLUSION",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should restrict Examiner Flatley's testimony to the fact-based narrative originally disclosed in the September 15 letter and preclude him from testifying to any expert opinions first disclosed in the November 26 letter or the December 3 or 5 emails.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011318",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Examiner Flatley",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 6, 2021",
+      "September 15",
+      "November 26",
+      "December 3",
+      "December 5",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "715",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011318"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011319.json

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "716",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 716 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n+1 212 957 7600 phone\nwww.cohengresser.com\nChristian R. Everdell\n+1 (212) 957-7600\nceverdell@cohengresser.com\nNovember 22, 2021\nBY EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nOn behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's Order, dated November 19, 2021, requesting that the parties submit any suggested edits to the proposed limiting instructions set forth in the Order. (Dkt. No. 477). The defense does not have any edits to the Court's proposed instructions. However, the defense requests the opportunity to respond to the government's lengthy submission, either in writing or orally at the final pretrial conference on November 23, 2021.\nSincerely,\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n(212) 957-7600\ncc: All Counsel of Record (By Email)\n2054070.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011319",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 716 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n+1 212 957 7600 phone\nwww.cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\n+1 (212) 957-7600\nceverdell@cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "November 22, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY EMAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:\nOn behalf of our client, Ghislaine Maxwell, we respectfully submit this letter in response to the Court's Order, dated November 19, 2021, requesting that the parties submit any suggested edits to the proposed limiting instructions set forth in the Order. (Dkt. No. 477). The defense does not have any edits to the Court's proposed instructions. However, the defense requests the opportunity to respond to the government's lengthy submission, either in writing or orally at the final pretrial conference on November 23, 2021.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Sincerely,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/s/ Christian Everdell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, NY 10022\n(212) 957-7600",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: All Counsel of Record (By Email)",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2054070.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011319",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Christian Everdell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Southern District of New York",
+      "40 Foley Square"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 22, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 23, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 716",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 477",
+      "2054070.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011319"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is dated November 22, 2021, and is in response to a court order dated November 19, 2021. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011320.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "December 12, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 10\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 12, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nAs directed, I write to request that the Court permit three witnesses called by the defense to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only. Those witnesses are , Michelle Healy, and . Ms. Maxwell submits this letter at the request of these witnesses.1\nMs. Maxwell has conferred with the government about this request. The government opposes any form of protective anonymity for these witnesses.\nBACKGROUND\nSo far, there have been ten trial days in this case. During that time, several witnesses have testified using a pseudonym or their first name only. These witnesses include three of the four alleged victims (Jane, Kate, and Carolyn) and two other government witnesses (Matt and\n1 Ms. Maxwell may call as witnesses individuals who share the same true last name as the alleged victims in this case. Consistent with this Court's earlier ruling, and subject to her earlier objections, Ms. Maxwell does not oppose these witnesses testifying using pseudonyms or their first names only.\nDOJ-OGR-00011320",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 12, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As directed, I write to request that the Court permit three witnesses called by the defense to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only. Those witnesses are , Michelle Healy, and . Ms. Maxwell submits this letter at the request of these witnesses.1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell has conferred with the government about this request. The government opposes any form of protective anonymity for these witnesses.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BACKGROUND\nSo far, there have been ten trial days in this case. During that time, several witnesses have testified using a pseudonym or their first name only. These witnesses include three of the four alleged victims (Jane, Kate, and Carolyn) and two other government witnesses (Matt and",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 Ms. Maxwell may call as witnesses individuals who share the same true last name as the alleged victims in this case. Consistent with this Court's earlier ruling, and subject to her earlier objections, Ms. Maxwell does not oppose these witnesses testifying using pseudonyms or their first names only.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011320",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Jane",
+      "Kate",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Matt"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, Colorado",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011320"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a request to permit certain witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only. The letter is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011322.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 3\nfelt constrained not to help or not to be fully forthright in their testimony, which is exactly what will happen if these three witnesses are not given the same consideration as was given the government's witnesses. Indeed, defense counsel have encountered significant resistance from former Epstein employees and acquaintances concerning their willingness or availability to testify because of fear related to unfavorable publicity should their names be publicly associated with Mr. Epstein. Numerous witnesses have refused to be interviewed, professed a lack of knowledge or memory, and actively avoided service of process because of the fear of public retaliation.\n\nARGUMENT\nThe Constitution grants Ms. Maxwell the right to present a defense and to compulsory process. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. It also guarantees her effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const amend. VI. To vindicate these rights, Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court permit three witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only.\nA.\nhas known Ms. Maxwell and her family for almost forty years. She visited Ms. Maxwell in the United States at the various locations that are at issue in this trial during the relevant time periods. She met Jeffrey Epstein and can describe Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Mr. Epstein.2\nDOJ-OGR-00011322",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "felt constrained not to help or not to be fully forthright in their testimony, which is exactly what will happen if these three witnesses are not given the same consideration as was given the government's witnesses. Indeed, defense counsel have encountered significant resistance from former Epstein employees and acquaintances concerning their willingness or availability to testify because of fear related to unfavorable publicity should their names be publicly associated with Mr. Epstein. Numerous witnesses have refused to be interviewed, professed a lack of knowledge or memory, and actively avoided service of process because of the fear of public retaliation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ARGUMENT",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Constitution grants Ms. Maxwell the right to present a defense and to compulsory process. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. It also guarantees her effective assistance of counsel. U.S. Const amend. VI. To vindicate these rights, Ms. Maxwell requests that this Court permit three witnesses to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "has known Ms. Maxwell and her family for almost forty years. She visited Ms. Maxwell in the United States at the various locations that are at issue in this trial during the relevant time periods. She met Jeffrey Epstein and can describe Ms. Maxwell's interactions with Mr. Epstein.2",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011322",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey Epstein",
+      "Mr. Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011322"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with redactions in certain sections. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011323.json

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 4\n\n        Ms. Maxwell expects her to testify on Monday, December\n20. This Court should permit to testify using a pseudonym.\nFirst, has a substantial professional interest in testifying using a pseudonym.\nPut simply,\n\nis justifiably worried that she will be denounced and ostracized by her colleagues should it become a mater of public record that she testified at the request of Ms. Maxwell's defense team. See, e.g., United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970) (proper for court to preclude defense from revealing witness's address when that information \"may subject the witness to reprisals\"). Her testimony in this case, if revealed, presents a real threat to her employment. See United States v. Marcus, No. 05 CR 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (pseudonymity may be appropriate \"to avert loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity\").\n\ncf. TR 11/1/2021, p 8:1-3\nDOJ-OGR-00011323",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell expects her to testify on Monday, December",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20. This Court should permit to testify using a pseudonym.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "First, has a substantial professional interest in testifying using a pseudonym.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Put simply,",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "is justifiably worried that she will be denounced and ostracized by her colleagues should it become a mater of public record that she testified at the request of Ms. Maxwell's defense team. See, e.g., United States v. Marti, 421 F.2d 1263, 1266 (2d Cir. 1970) (proper for court to preclude defense from revealing witness's address when that information \"may subject the witness to reprisals\"). Her testimony in this case, if revealed, presents a real threat to her employment. See United States v. Marcus, No. 05 CR 457 (ARR), 2007 WL 330388, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 31, 2007) (pseudonymity may be appropriate \"to avert loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity\").",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cf. TR 11/1/2021, p 8:1-3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011323",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "Jan. 31, 2007",
+      "11/1/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "05 CR 457",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011323"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information such as witness identities."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011324.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 5\n(\"[R]equiring alleged victims to publicly provide their names could chill their willingness to testify for fear of having their personal histories publicized.\")\nThere is ample precedent for this request,\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\nSecond, beyond the professional basis for this request, there is another reason this Court should grant anonymity. As this Court said at the pretrial conference when granting the government's motion, \"limiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other\nDOJ-OGR-00011324",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "(\"[R]equiring alleged victims to publicly provide their names could chill their willingness to testify for fear of having their personal histories publicized.\")",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There is ample precedent for this request,",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________\n____________________________________________________",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, beyond the professional basis for this request, there is another reason this Court should grant anonymity. As this Court said at the pretrial conference when granting the government's motion, \"limiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011324",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "717",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011324"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions in the form of black bars covering certain text. The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011325.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 10 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 6 adverse consequences.\" TR 11/1/2021, p 6:20-23. The harassment and intimidation will experience if it becomes public that she testified at the request of Ms. Maxwell cannot be overstated. If her identity is revealed, will be a prime target for media hysteria and harassment in all its forms. At trial, this rationale for anonymity extended beyond the alleged victims themselves to include several witnesses and third parties. Exhibits with witness or third-party identifying information were filed under seal or redacted. (As noted above, there were at least forty-five times when an exhibit or series of exhibit was admitted either partially or fully under seal to protect the identity or privacy of a victim, third party, or witness.) Thus, even though is not an alleged victim in this case, that does not mean she lacks profound professional and personal privacy interests in not having her true name revealed in public. Likewise, should be afforded the same privacy protection as have other witnesses whose true or full identity has been safeguarded—courtroom artists should be precluded from drawing her true facial likeness. Finally, Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, to compulsory process, and to effective assistance counsel would be compromised without the protection of anonymity requested here. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. As this Court said at the pretrial conference, \"[g]iven the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged, such publicity may cause further harassment or embarrassment, and other alleged victims of sex crimes may be deterred from coming forward.\" TR 11/1/2021, p 8:4-7. This logic applies with equal force to witnesses called by the defense. As to in particular, there is no question she will face vitriol, harassment, and intimidation once she is publicly labeled as a DOJ-OGR-00011325",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "adverse consequences.\" TR 11/1/2021, p 6:20-23. The harassment and intimidation will experience if it becomes public that she testified at the request of Ms. Maxwell cannot be overstated. If her identity is revealed, will be a prime target for media hysteria and harassment in all its forms.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At trial, this rationale for anonymity extended beyond the alleged victims themselves to include several witnesses and third parties. Exhibits with witness or third-party identifying information were filed under seal or redacted. (As noted above, there were at least forty-five times when an exhibit or series of exhibit was admitted either partially or fully under seal to protect the identity or privacy of a victim, third party, or witness.) Thus, even though is not an alleged victim in this case, that does not mean she lacks profound professional and personal privacy interests in not having her true name revealed in public. Likewise, should be afforded the same privacy protection as have other witnesses whose true or full identity has been safeguarded—courtroom artists should be precluded from drawing her true facial likeness.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, to compulsory process, and to effective assistance counsel would be compromised without the protection of anonymity requested here. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. As this Court said at the pretrial conference, \"[g]iven the sensitive and inflammatory nature of the conduct alleged, such publicity may cause further harassment or embarrassment, and other alleged victims of sex crimes may be deterred from coming forward.\" TR 11/1/2021, p 8:4-7. This logic applies with equal force to witnesses called by the defense. As to in particular, there is no question she will face vitriol, harassment, and intimidation once she is publicly labeled as a",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011325",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/1/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011325"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely to protect sensitive information or identities."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011326.json

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 7\ndefense witness and \"Maxwell apologist.\" has relevant and material information, and\nMs. Maxwell has a constitutional right to present her testimony to the jury. This Court should safeguard Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights by affording the protection she seeks here.\nThe countervailing considerations cannot outweigh request. First, there is nothing evidentiary or relevant about true name. Second, unlike Ms. Maxwell, the government does not have a constitutional right to confrontation. The government can fully cross-examine without publicly disclosing her name.\nPublication of true identity is unnecessary and unreasonable, just as this Court found it was with the alleged victims and Matt and Shawn. As the Court recognized in Alvarado v. Burge, \"Testifying by giving an identifying number [or alias] rather than a [true] name does not necessarily curtail any trial rights. The cross-examiner can question the witness' activities . . . without regard to the witness' name, and similarly has an opportunity to see and hear that which he testifies about.\" No. 5 Civ. 1851(AKH), 2006 WL 1840020, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006).\nThis Court should permit to testify using a pseudonym.\nB. Michelle Healy\nMichelle Healy has a substantial personal privacy interest in testifying using her first name only. During her testimony, Jane alleged that \"Michelle\" participated in sexualized massages and orgies with Mr. Epstein. From Jane's description of \"Michelle\" in her testimony and her prior statements, it is clear that she is referring to Michelle Healy. Although Ms. Healy DOJ-OGR-00011326",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 12, 2021 Page 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "defense witness and \"Maxwell apologist.\" has relevant and material information, and\nMs. Maxwell has a constitutional right to present her testimony to the jury. This Court should safeguard Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights by affording the protection she seeks here.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The countervailing considerations cannot outweigh request. First, there is nothing evidentiary or relevant about true name. Second, unlike Ms. Maxwell, the government does not have a constitutional right to confrontation. The government can fully cross-examine without publicly disclosing her name.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Publication of true identity is unnecessary and unreasonable, just as this Court found it was with the alleged victims and Matt and Shawn. As the Court recognized in Alvarado v. Burge, \"Testifying by giving an identifying number [or alias] rather than a [true] name does not necessarily curtail any trial rights. The cross-examiner can question the witness' activities . . . without regard to the witness' name, and similarly has an opportunity to see and hear that which he testifies about.\" No. 5 Civ. 1851(AKH), 2006 WL 1840020, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2006).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should permit to testify using a pseudonym.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Michelle Healy",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Michelle Healy has a substantial personal privacy interest in testifying using her first name only. During her testimony, Jane alleged that \"Michelle\" participated in sexualized massages and orgies with Mr. Epstein. From Jane's description of \"Michelle\" in her testimony and her prior statements, it is clear that she is referring to Michelle Healy. Although Ms. Healy",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011326",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Jane",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Matt",
+      "Shawn"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "June 30, 2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "No. 5 Civ. 1851(AKH)",
+      "2006 WL 1840020",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011326"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell, with redactions for certain names and information. The text discusses the constitutional rights of Ms. Maxwell and the government's right to confrontation, as well as the privacy interests of Michelle Healy."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011327.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 8\ndeniers Jane's claims, if Jane is telling the truth, then Michelle is a victim just as much as Jane is.\nSee 18 U.S.C. 3771(e)(2)(A) (the Crime Victims Act, defining “crime victim” means as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense”).\nThus, for the very same reasons Carolyn could testify using only her first name, so too should Michelle be permitted to testify using her first name only. See TR 11/1/2021, pp 6-13. (It would be impractical for Michelle to use a pseudonym since her true first name is already in the record, though her last name is not.) If Michelle Healy's full name is revealed to the public, she will be subject to the same scorn, harassment, embarrassment, and intimidation that this Court relied on to grant witnesses like Carolyn the privilege of testifying using only their first names. TR 11/1/2021, p 6:20-23 (“[L]imiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences.”); see Gov. Mot. in Limine, pp 3-14 (citing authority and arguing for anonymity for the alleged victims in this case).\nC.\nis an adult,. There is no allegation that she is the victim of any improper or illegal conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Even so, Ms.desires to testify using a pseudonym given the media hysteria surrounding this case and the inevitable harassment and intimidation that will follow because of being outed as a “masseuse” associated with Mr. Epstein.\nNot only will Ms.be subject to harassment and intimidation if her true name is disclosed, disclosure will also threaten the “loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity.” See Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at *1. Because Ms. Healy's true name is not relevant,\nDOJ-OGR-00011327",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "deniers Jane's claims, if Jane is telling the truth, then Michelle is a victim just as much as Jane is.\nSee 18 U.S.C. 3771(e)(2)(A) (the Crime Victims Act, defining “crime victim” means as “a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense”).\nThus, for the very same reasons Carolyn could testify using only her first name, so too should Michelle be permitted to testify using her first name only. See TR 11/1/2021, pp 6-13. (It would be impractical for Michelle to use a pseudonym since her true first name is already in the record, though her last name is not.) If Michelle Healy's full name is revealed to the public, she will be subject to the same scorn, harassment, embarrassment, and intimidation that this Court relied on to grant witnesses like Carolyn the privilege of testifying using only their first names. TR 11/1/2021, p 6:20-23 (“[L]imiting disclosure here would protect the alleged victims from potential harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment and other adverse consequences.”); see Gov. Mot. in Limine, pp 3-14 (citing authority and arguing for anonymity for the alleged victims in this case).",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C.\nis an adult,. There is no allegation that she is the victim of any improper or illegal conduct by Mr. Epstein or Ms. Maxwell. Even so, Ms.desires to testify using a pseudonym given the media hysteria surrounding this case and the inevitable harassment and intimidation that will follow because of being outed as a “masseuse” associated with Mr. Epstein.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Not only will Ms.be subject to harassment and intimidation if her true name is disclosed, disclosure will also threaten the “loss of employment potentially resulting from trial publicity.” See Marcus, 2007 WL 330388, at *1. Because Ms. Healy's true name is not relevant,",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011327",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Michelle",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Ms.",
+      "Marcus"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/1/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "18 U.S.C. 3771(e)(2)(A)",
+      "TR 11/1/2021",
+      "Gov. Mot. in Limine",
+      "Marcus, 2007 WL 330388",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011327"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the potential harassment and intimidation that witnesses may face if their identities are revealed. The document includes redactions for certain individuals' names."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011328.json

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 9\nand because nondisclosure of her true name will not deprive the government of the ability to meaningfully cross-examine her, Ms. Healy's interest in remaining anonymous outweighs any government interest, \"especially where the [government] knows the true identit[y] of [Ms. Healy].\" Gov. Mot. in Limine, p 8 (citing cases).\n\nCONCLUSION\nWhen this Court read its preliminary instructions to the jury, it said:\nAs I mentioned during jury selection, this case has received and will continue to receive significant attention in the media. To protect their privacy, I have permitted witnesses, if they choose, to be referred to in open court by either their first name or a pseudonym. The full names of the witnesses are known to the government, the defendant, to the Court, and were shown to you during jury selection. This process should not bear in any way on your evaluation of the evidence in this case.\n\nTR 11/29/2021, pp 24-25.\nSeveral government witnesses testified using pseudonyms or only their first names. The logic of allowing that process applies with equal if not greater force here, given Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, to compulsory process, and to effective assistance of counsel. These three defense witnesses merely ask for the same consideration given the government's several witnesses. Because their professional and personal privacy concerns are significant and substantial, and because testifying under a pseudonym or a first name will not affect the government's ability to fairly cross-examine them, this Court should permit , Ms. Healy, and Ms.  to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only, just as it permitted Jane, Kate, Carolyn, Matt, and Shawn to do, and the courtroom artists should be precluded from sketching their faces.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011328",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "and because nondisclosure of her true name will not deprive the government of the ability to meaningfully cross-examine her, Ms. Healy's interest in remaining anonymous outweighs any government interest, \"especially where the [government] knows the true identit[y] of [Ms. Healy].\" Gov. Mot. in Limine, p 8 (citing cases).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CONCLUSION",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "When this Court read its preliminary instructions to the jury, it said:\nAs I mentioned during jury selection, this case has received and will continue to receive significant attention in the media. To protect their privacy, I have permitted witnesses, if they choose, to be referred to in open court by either their first name or a pseudonym. The full names of the witnesses are known to the government, the defendant, to the Court, and were shown to you during jury selection. This process should not bear in any way on your evaluation of the evidence in this case.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "TR 11/29/2021, pp 24-25.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Several government witnesses testified using pseudonyms or only their first names. The logic of allowing that process applies with equal if not greater force here, given Ms. Maxwell's constitutional rights to present a defense, to compulsory process, and to effective assistance of counsel. These three defense witnesses merely ask for the same consideration given the government's several witnesses. Because their professional and personal privacy concerns are significant and substantial, and because testifying under a pseudonym or a first name will not affect the government's ability to fairly cross-examine them, this Court should permit , Ms. Healy, and Ms.  to testify using pseudonyms or their first names only, just as it permitted Jane, Kate, Carolyn, Matt, and Shawn to do, and the courtroom artists should be precluded from sketching their faces.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011328",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Healy",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Jane",
+      "Kate",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Matt",
+      "Shawn"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/29/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011328"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the use of pseudonyms or first names for witnesses to protect their privacy. There are two redacted names in the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011329.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "717",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 10\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 10\nRespectfully submitted,\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\nDOJ-OGR-00011329",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 717 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 12, 2021\nPage 10",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011329",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 717",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011329"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and contact information for attorneys. The document is clean and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011330.json

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 3",
+    "document_number": "718",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3 COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com December 5, 2021 BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: Pursuant to the Court's Order of earlier today, we respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the government's request to modify the Court's proposed limiting instruction concerning the testimony of Witness-3. The government's request is yet another example of its repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have been decided against them. The Court's instruction is appropriate and balanced and should not be changed. We should be clear from the outset - we are in this position because the government is insisting on calling a witness who has alleged conduct that is not illegal. The Court has ruled, and the government has itself conceded, that Witness-3 \"is not a victim of any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.\" 11/19/2021 Op. and Order at 2. The Court has correctly recognized that having Witness-3 describe the details of her sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein would have no probative value because it cannot establish an element of the charged offenses. See id. at 4 (\"There is little to no probative value of a witness describing sexual activity when that witness's testimony regarding the sexual activity cannot form the basis for the conviction of the crimes charged.\"); see also 2061438.1 DOJ-OGR-00011330",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 5, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: Pursuant to the Court's Order of earlier today, we respectfully submit this letter in opposition to the government's request to modify the Court's proposed limiting instruction concerning the testimony of Witness-3. The government's request is yet another example of its repeated attempts to relitigate issues that have been decided against them. The Court's instruction is appropriate and balanced and should not be changed. We should be clear from the outset - we are in this position because the government is insisting on calling a witness who has alleged conduct that is not illegal. The Court has ruled, and the government has itself conceded, that Witness-3 \"is not a victim of any of the crimes charged in the Indictment.\" 11/19/2021 Op. and Order at 2. The Court has correctly recognized that having Witness-3 describe the details of her sex acts with Jeffrey Epstein would have no probative value because it cannot establish an element of the charged offenses. See id. at 4 (\"There is little to no probative value of a witness describing sexual activity when that witness's testimony regarding the sexual activity cannot form the basis for the conviction of the crimes charged.\"); see also",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2061438.1 DOJ-OGR-00011330",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 5, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/19/2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 718",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "2061438.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011330"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is from Christian R. Everdell of COHEN & GRESSER LLP and is addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document is dated December 5, 2021, and is in opposition to the government's request to modify the Court's proposed limiting instruction concerning the testimony of Witness-3."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011331.json

@@ -0,0 +1,56 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "718",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 2\n\n11/10/2021 Tr. at 169 (\"I don't think that's going to happen with witness three because that sexual conduct is not -- you don't need to prove that sexual conduct to prove an element.\")\n\nFurthermore, the Court has correctly recognized that if the jury hears the details of the sex acts between Epstein and Witness-3, there is a substantial risk that the jury \"may confuse the issues and think that the sexual conduct this witness is describing itself constitutes the illegality charged in the Indictment due to the closeness in age of this witness to the age of consent\" and as a result \"may convict Ms. Maxwell due to feelings of immorality or sympathy for the witness despite the lack of illegality with regard to the crimes charged in the Indictment.\" 11/19/2021 Op. and Order at 3.\n\nThe government now complains that the testimony of Witness-3 will be misconstrued by the jury as a lack of detailed recollection if the Court does not instruct the jury that she has been instructed not to go into those details. That is the trade-off they must live with if they persist in calling this witness. Moreover, the government's argument that the defense has somehow put at issue all of the details of Witness-3's sex acts with Epstein simply by questioning the accuracy of the accusers' memories is nonsense. The dates and specifics of the alleged abuse of other witnesses are entirely separate from the issue of whether the Court's proposed instruction is misleading as to the testimony of Witness-3. It is not.\n\nThe Court has already carefully considered the limits of Witness-3's testimony and has balanced the government's use of this witness to establish intent, motive, etc., and the need to protect Ms. Maxwell from undue prejudice and a conviction based on an improper premise. The\n\n2061438.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011331",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 2",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "11/10/2021 Tr. at 169 (\"I don't think that's going to happen with witness three because that sexual conduct is not -- you don't need to prove that sexual conduct to prove an element.\")\n\nFurthermore, the Court has correctly recognized that if the jury hears the details of the sex acts between Epstein and Witness-3, there is a substantial risk that the jury \"may confuse the issues and think that the sexual conduct this witness is describing itself constitutes the illegality charged in the Indictment due to the closeness in age of this witness to the age of consent\" and as a result \"may convict Ms. Maxwell due to feelings of immorality or sympathy for the witness despite the lack of illegality with regard to the crimes charged in the Indictment.\" 11/19/2021 Op. and Order at 3.\n\nThe government now complains that the testimony of Witness-3 will be misconstrued by the jury as a lack of detailed recollection if the Court does not instruct the jury that she has been instructed not to go into those details. That is the trade-off they must live with if they persist in calling this witness. Moreover, the government's argument that the defense has somehow put at issue all of the details of Witness-3's sex acts with Epstein simply by questioning the accuracy of the accusers' memories is nonsense. The dates and specifics of the alleged abuse of other witnesses are entirely separate from the issue of whether the Court's proposed instruction is misleading as to the testimony of Witness-3. It is not.\n\nThe Court has already carefully considered the limits of Witness-3's testimony and has balanced the government's use of this witness to establish intent, motive, etc., and the need to protect Ms. Maxwell from undue prejudice and a conviction based on an improper premise. The",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2061438.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011331",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Epstein",
+      "Witness-3",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 5, 2021",
+      "11/10/2021",
+      "11/19/2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 718",
+      "2061438.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011331"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the testimony of Witness-3 and the potential risks of prejudice to Ms. Maxwell. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011332.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "718",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 3\n\nproposed limiting instruction does precisely that. It should not be modified simply because the government cannot use Witness-3 the way they originally intended.\n\nSincerely,\n\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600\n\ncc: All Counsel of Record (By Email)\n\n2061438.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011332",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 718 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 5, 2021\nPage 3",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "proposed limiting instruction does precisely that. It should not be modified simply because the government cannot use Witness-3 the way they originally intended.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Sincerely,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "/s/ Christian Everdell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: All Counsel of Record (By Email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2061438.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011332",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Christian Everdell",
+      "Witness-3"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 5, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 718",
+      "2061438.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011332"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm, discussing a legal matter and referencing a specific case number and document number. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011333.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "December 13, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 8\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 13, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nMs. Maxwell has disclosed to the government the December 19, 1996 Agreement for Sale of 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1. Gov. Letter Mot., Ex. A. The 1996 Agreement is impeachment evidence, the relevance of which Ms. Maxwell could not have known until Kate testified on direct examination that Ms. Maxwell lived in the Kinnerton Street home in 1994. The 1996 Agreement contradicts Kate's testimony by proving that Ms. Maxwell did not purchase Kinnerton Street until 1996. Ms. Maxwell was not required to disclose the 1996 Agreement to the government until now.\nThe government does not deny the authenticity or relevance of the 1996 Agreement. The 1996 Agreement shows that Ms. Maxwell contracted to purchase 44 Kinnerton Street in December 1996 and completed the sale in early 1997. The Kinnerton home is in the Belgravia neighborhood of London.\nKate, by contrast, testified under oath that she visited Ms. Maxwell's home on Kinnerton Street in 1994 when Kate was 17 years old.\nDOJ-OGR-00011333",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 13, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "VIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell has disclosed to the government the December 19, 1996 Agreement for Sale of 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1. Gov. Letter Mot., Ex. A. The 1996 Agreement is impeachment evidence, the relevance of which Ms. Maxwell could not have known until Kate testified on direct examination that Ms. Maxwell lived in the Kinnerton Street home in 1994. The 1996 Agreement contradicts Kate's testimony by proving that Ms. Maxwell did not purchase Kinnerton Street until 1996. Ms. Maxwell was not required to disclose the 1996 Agreement to the government until now.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government does not deny the authenticity or relevance of the 1996 Agreement. The 1996 Agreement shows that Ms. Maxwell contracted to purchase 44 Kinnerton Street in December 1996 and completed the sale in early 1997. The Kinnerton home is in the Belgravia neighborhood of London.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Kate, by contrast, testified under oath that she visited Ms. Maxwell's home on Kinnerton Street in 1994 when Kate was 17 years old.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011333",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Kate"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York",
+      "London",
+      "Belgravia",
+      "Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "December 19, 1996",
+      "1994",
+      "1996",
+      "1997"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011333"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge regarding a court case. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011334.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 2\nQ. When you were approximately 17 years old, where were you living?\nA. I was living in England, London.\nQ. What neighborhood in London did you live?\nA. Belgravia.\nTR 12/6/2021, p 1172:2-6. She said:\nQ. And approximately what year were you 17 years old?\nA. God, I can't do the math. So that was '94.\nQ. Is that 1994?\nA. Yes.\nId. at 1172:22-25. Then, after identifying a photo of Ms. Maxwell's Kinnerton Street home:\nQ. Kate, in what neighborhood was this townhouse?\nA. In the same neighborhood I lived in, in Belgravia.\nId. at 1177:5-6.\nThe 1996 Agreement proves that Kate's testimony is not accurate.\nConfronted with proof that Kate did not tell the truth, the government asks this Court to preclude Ms. Maxwell from offering the 1996 Agreement into evidence on the theory that, because Ms. Maxwell did not disclose the 1996 Agreement earlier, the government was not able to fully and fairly investigate its case. Gov. Letter at 6. The government's argument is groundless.1\n1 It is also tone-deaf, considering the government's pattern and practice of discovering evidence in dead of night, just hours before witnesses testify. Some examples:\n- The government first disclosed Kate's driver's license at 11:11 p.m. the night before she testified.\nDOJ-OGR-00011334",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 2",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Q. When you were approximately 17 years old, where were you living?\nA. I was living in England, London.\nQ. What neighborhood in London did you live?\nA. Belgravia.\nTR 12/6/2021, p 1172:2-6. She said:\nQ. And approximately what year were you 17 years old?\nA. God, I can't do the math. So that was '94.\nQ. Is that 1994?\nA. Yes.\nId. at 1172:22-25. Then, after identifying a photo of Ms. Maxwell's Kinnerton Street home:\nQ. Kate, in what neighborhood was this townhouse?\nA. In the same neighborhood I lived in, in Belgravia.\nId. at 1177:5-6.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The 1996 Agreement proves that Kate's testimony is not accurate.\nConfronted with proof that Kate did not tell the truth, the government asks this Court to preclude Ms. Maxwell from offering the 1996 Agreement into evidence on the theory that, because Ms. Maxwell did not disclose the 1996 Agreement earlier, the government was not able to fully and fairly investigate its case. Gov. Letter at 6. The government's argument is groundless.1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 It is also tone-deaf, considering the government's pattern and practice of discovering evidence in dead of night, just hours before witnesses testify. Some examples:\n- The government first disclosed Kate's driver's license at 11:11 p.m. the night before she testified.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011334",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Kate",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "England",
+      "London",
+      "Belgravia",
+      "Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "12/6/2021",
+      "1994",
+      "1996"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011334"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal filing. It is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011335.json

@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 3\nFirst, Ms. Maxwell did not contravene Rule 16. As a matter of reciprocal discovery, that Rule requires the defense to disclose an item to the government if “the defendant intends to use the item in the defendant’s case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)(ii).\nThe relevance of the 1996 Agreement was not apparent until after Kate testified, under oath, to an impossibility—that she visited Kinnerton Street years before Ms. Maxwell bought it.\nThe 1996 Agreement is classic evidence of impeachment by contradiction, which, “unlike affirmative evidence presented to support her defense, [a defendant] may not even know she may need to use . . . until after she hears the direct testimony of the witness.” United States v. Hsia, No. CRIM. 98-0057 (PLF), 2000 WL 195067, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2000).\nContrary to the government’s representation, Kate’s FBI 302 materials did not show what she would say on the stand about where Ms. Maxwell’s home was in 1994. Gov. Letter at 5. To the contrary, before her trial testimony last week, Kate had told the government two different stories. The first was that Ms. Maxwell lived in the Kensington neighborhood of London:\n[Kate] thought that there were approximately two assaults by EPSTEIN before she started traveling with he and MAXWELL, but was unsure about the exact number. This occurred at MAXWELL’s residence in Kensington.\n3513-009 at 3 (FBI 302).\nThe government first endorsed and disclosed a new witness and new exhibits on December 9, the night before calling the witness to the stand on the last day of the government’s case.\nThe government belatedly disclosed expert opinion testimony from Examiner Flatley.\nAll the material the government disclosed after November 30, including letters, PayPal record, and bank records.\nDOJ-OGR-00011335",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "First, Ms. Maxwell did not contravene Rule 16. As a matter of reciprocal discovery, that Rule requires the defense to disclose an item to the government if “the defendant intends to use the item in the defendant’s case-in-chief at trial.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(A)(ii).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The relevance of the 1996 Agreement was not apparent until after Kate testified, under oath, to an impossibility—that she visited Kinnerton Street years before Ms. Maxwell bought it.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The 1996 Agreement is classic evidence of impeachment by contradiction, which, “unlike affirmative evidence presented to support her defense, [a defendant] may not even know she may need to use . . . until after she hears the direct testimony of the witness.” United States v. Hsia, No. CRIM. 98-0057 (PLF), 2000 WL 195067, at *2 (D.D.C. Jan. 21, 2000).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Contrary to the government’s representation, Kate’s FBI 302 materials did not show what she would say on the stand about where Ms. Maxwell’s home was in 1994. Gov. Letter at 5. To the contrary, before her trial testimony last week, Kate had told the government two different stories. The first was that Ms. Maxwell lived in the Kensington neighborhood of London:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "[Kate] thought that there were approximately two assaults by EPSTEIN before she started traveling with he and MAXWELL, but was unsure about the exact number. This occurred at MAXWELL’s residence in Kensington.\n3513-009 at 3 (FBI 302).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government first endorsed and disclosed a new witness and new exhibits on December 9, the night before calling the witness to the stand on the last day of the government’s case.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government belatedly disclosed expert opinion testimony from Examiner Flatley.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "All the material the government disclosed after November 30, including letters, PayPal record, and bank records.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011335",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Kate",
+      "EPSTEIN",
+      "MAXWELL",
+      "Examiner Flatley"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "FBI"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Kinnerton Street",
+      "Kensington",
+      "London",
+      "D.D.C."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "January 21, 2000",
+      "December 9",
+      "November 30",
+      "1994",
+      "1996"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719",
+      "CRIM. 98-0057 (PLF)",
+      "2000 WL 195067",
+      "3513-009",
+      "FBI 302",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011335"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 3 of 8."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011337.json

@@ -0,0 +1,75 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 5\ncorrect? A. I testified that I thought I was around that age, yes. Q. And I think you said, when asked to do the math, that it was approximately 1994; correct? A. Yes.\nSecond, the government's theory of prejudice is bewildering. The government contends that it was prejudiced by its own failure to investigate whether its witness was telling the truth. Gov. Letter at 6. Again, before her testimony, Kate had told the government two different stories about where Ms. Maxwell lived in 1994-at a home in the Kensington neighborhood, or at the Kinnerton Street home in the Belgravia neighborhood. The government chose not to investigate where Ms. Maxwell actually lived in 1994 and which, if any, of Kate's stories were true. That is not Ms. Maxwell's fault. And neither is it her duty to do the government's work for it. The government cannot seriously contend that an investigation into where Ms. Maxwell lived \"did not become necessary\" until after Kate testified. Gov. Letter at 6.\nThe government complains about the difficulty of conducting investigations abroad. Gov. Letter at 6 (\"That is a time-consuming international, intergovernmental process involving multiple agencies in each country that is not likely to generate admissible evidence by the conclusion of trial.\") The government's complaints are overwrought. For one thing, the government had investigators in the United Kingdom investigating Ms. Maxwell's college record. There was nothing preventing these investigators from asking the most basic of questions: When did Ms. Maxwell purchase the Kinnerton Street property?\n2 The government's failure to investigate is not limited to Kate's allegations. The veracity of another accuser, Jane, is the subject of a post-testimony 3500 disclosure.",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "correct? A. I testified that I thought I was around that age, yes. Q. And I think you said, when asked to do the math, that it was approximately 1994; correct? A. Yes.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, the government's theory of prejudice is bewildering. The government contends that it was prejudiced by its own failure to investigate whether its witness was telling the truth. Gov. Letter at 6. Again, before her testimony, Kate had told the government two different stories about where Ms. Maxwell lived in 1994-at a home in the Kensington neighborhood, or at the Kinnerton Street home in the Belgravia neighborhood. The government chose not to investigate where Ms. Maxwell actually lived in 1994 and which, if any, of Kate's stories were true. That is not Ms. Maxwell's fault. And neither is it her duty to do the government's work for it. The government cannot seriously contend that an investigation into where Ms. Maxwell lived \"did not become necessary\" until after Kate testified. Gov. Letter at 6.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government complains about the difficulty of conducting investigations abroad. Gov. Letter at 6 (\"That is a time-consuming international, intergovernmental process involving multiple agencies in each country that is not likely to generate admissible evidence by the conclusion of trial.\") The government's complaints are overwrought. For one thing, the government had investigators in the United Kingdom investigating Ms. Maxwell's college record. There was nothing preventing these investigators from asking the most basic of questions: When did Ms. Maxwell purchase the Kinnerton Street property?",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2 The government's failure to investigate is not limited to Kate's allegations. The veracity of another accuser, Jane, is the subject of a post-testimony 3500 disclosure.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011337",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Kate",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Jane"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Kensington",
+      "Kinnerton Street",
+      "Belgravia",
+      "United Kingdom"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "1994"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011338.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 6\nFor another thing, evidence that Ms. Maxwell did not purchase the Kinnerton Street home until 1996 is publicly available and accessible via the internet.3 The government could have asked those same investigators to obtain property records. Further, the government has the ability to avail itself of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an agreement between the United States and United Kingdom and an investigatory tool frequently used by the government for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information with the United Kingdom in the course of criminal investigations.\nNow that the date of Ms. Maxwell's purchase of Kinnerton Street is relevant, Ms. Maxwell has requested these registry entries from Her Majesty's Land Registry. These entries show the transfer of title of 44 Kinnerton Street to Ghislaine Maxwell in March 1997 after the 1996 Agreement for Sale. Ms. Maxwell will provide these documents to the government as soon as she has them.\nIn addition, just this morning, Ms. Maxwell obtained a copy of the Transfer of Title for Kinnerton Street to Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell provided this document to the government within three hours of first receiving it. Thus, once it became clear that the 1996 Agreement was relevant, it took just days for Ms. Maxwell to obtain independently relevant and admissible evidence proving the same point—that Kate testified to an impossibility. Because the government has received a copy of the Transfer of Title, and because Ms. Maxwell will immediately produce the public records she obtains from the Land Registry, the government cannot claim to be prejudiced by the discovery of the 1996 Agreement.\n3 https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do (last visited Dec. 13, 2021).\nDOJ-OGR-00011338",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For another thing, evidence that Ms. Maxwell did not purchase the Kinnerton Street home until 1996 is publicly available and accessible via the internet.3 The government could have asked those same investigators to obtain property records. Further, the government has the ability to avail itself of a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), an agreement between the United States and United Kingdom and an investigatory tool frequently used by the government for the purpose of gathering and exchanging information with the United Kingdom in the course of criminal investigations.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Now that the date of Ms. Maxwell's purchase of Kinnerton Street is relevant, Ms. Maxwell has requested these registry entries from Her Majesty's Land Registry. These entries show the transfer of title of 44 Kinnerton Street to Ghislaine Maxwell in March 1997 after the 1996 Agreement for Sale. Ms. Maxwell will provide these documents to the government as soon as she has them.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In addition, just this morning, Ms. Maxwell obtained a copy of the Transfer of Title for Kinnerton Street to Ms. Maxwell. Ms. Maxwell provided this document to the government within three hours of first receiving it. Thus, once it became clear that the 1996 Agreement was relevant, it took just days for Ms. Maxwell to obtain independently relevant and admissible evidence proving the same point—that Kate testified to an impossibility. Because the government has received a copy of the Transfer of Title, and because Ms. Maxwell will immediately produce the public records she obtains from the Land Registry, the government cannot claim to be prejudiced by the discovery of the 1996 Agreement.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3 https://eservices.landregistry.gov.uk/eservices/FindAProperty/view/QuickEnquiryInit.do (last visited Dec. 13, 2021).",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011338",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kate",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States",
+      "United Kingdom",
+      "Her Majesty's Land Registry",
+      "Land Registry"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "1996",
+      "March 1997",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011338"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 6 of an 8-page document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011339.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 8 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 13, 2021 Page 7 Finally, the government's one-sentence 403 argument fails. Gov. Letter at 6 (\"[T]he agreement runs the risk of 'confusing the issue' and 'misleading the jury' by presenting a document from which the jury is asked to infer conclusions that range far beyond the evidence.\"). The jury will not be confused or misled by evidence that Kate could not have visited Ms. Maxwell at Kinnerton Street in 1994 because Ms. Maxwell did not purchase that home for another two years. In contrast, jurors will be misled if they don't learn that Kate testified to something that could not have happened. *** \"The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts.\" United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) (\"We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive.\") To that end, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to present evidence in her defense. U.S. Const. amend. V, VI. Excluding the 1996 Agreement, when Ms. Maxwell did not violate Rule 16 and the government has suffered no prejudice, would infringe this constitutional guarantee. And it would pervert the search for the truth, mislead the jury, and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. In the words of the Supreme Court, \"The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709. This Court should deny the government's motion. DOJ-OGR-00011339",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 13, 2021 Page 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, the government's one-sentence 403 argument fails. Gov. Letter at 6 (\"[T]he agreement runs the risk of 'confusing the issue' and 'misleading the jury' by presenting a document from which the jury is asked to infer conclusions that range far beyond the evidence.\"). The jury will not be confused or misled by evidence that Kate could not have visited Ms. Maxwell at Kinnerton Street in 1994 because Ms. Maxwell did not purchase that home for another two years. In contrast, jurors will be misled if they don't learn that Kate testified to something that could not have happened.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "\"The very integrity of the judicial system and public confidence in the system depend on full disclosure of all the facts.\" United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 709 (1974) (\"We have elected to employ an adversary system of criminal justice in which the parties contest all issues before a court of law. The need to develop all relevant facts in the adversary system is both fundamental and comprehensive.\") To that end, Ms. Maxwell has a due process right to present evidence in her defense. U.S. Const. amend. V, VI. Excluding the 1996 Agreement, when Ms. Maxwell did not violate Rule 16 and the government has suffered no prejudice, would infringe this constitutional guarantee. And it would pervert the search for the truth, mislead the jury, and undermine the integrity of the criminal justice system. In the words of the Supreme Court, \"The ends of criminal justice would be defeated if judgments were to be founded on a partial or speculative presentation of the facts.\" Nixon, 418 U.S. at 709.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should deny the government's motion.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011339",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Kate",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Nixon"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Supreme Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "1994",
+      "1974"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 719",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011339"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and legible. There are no visible redactions or damages."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011340.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "719",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 8\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 8\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\nDOJ-OGR-00011340",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 13, 2021\nPage 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011340",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "December 13, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "719",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011340"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a mix of printed and handwritten text. The header contains case information and the date. The main body lists attorneys and their contact information. The footer contains a reference number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011341.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "719-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL DOJ-OGR-00011341",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 719-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXHIBIT 1 FILED UNDER SEAL",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011341",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "719-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011341"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a sealed exhibit. The content of the exhibit is not visible in the provided image."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011342.json

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 3",
+    "document_number": "720",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n+1 212 957 7600 phone\nwww.cohengresser.com\nChristian R. Everdell\n+1 (212) 957-7600\nceverdell@cohengresser.com\nDecember 14, 2021\nBY ECF\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nPursuant to the Court's Order of earlier today (Dkt. 542), we write to provide the Court and the government with a revised tentative order of the defense witnesses. We note the following:\n1. We are still trying to make travel arrangements for the defense witnesses, many of whom are coming from locations all over the United States and from the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the order below is subject to change. We are making every effort to have witnesses available for Thursday and Friday but, in an abundance of caution, we are informing the Court and counsel that travel and COVID-related issues may require the case to be continued to next week.\n2. The list of witnesses may be substantially reduced if the government is willing to agree to stipulations as to certain documents and witness testimony. We have conferred with the government regarding these stipulations, but as yet the government has not agreed to them. Accordingly, the list includes several witnesses who will be called to introduce certain documents or to testify about particular prior inconsistent statements.\n2064893.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011342",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\n+1 212 957 7600 phone\nwww.cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\n+1 (212) 957-7600\nceverdell@cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 14, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY ECF",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Pursuant to the Court's Order of earlier today (Dkt. 542), we write to provide the Court and the government with a revised tentative order of the defense witnesses. We note the following:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. We are still trying to make travel arrangements for the defense witnesses, many of whom are coming from locations all over the United States and from the United Kingdom. Accordingly, the order below is subject to change. We are making every effort to have witnesses available for Thursday and Friday but, in an abundance of caution, we are informing the Court and counsel that travel and COVID-related issues may require the case to be continued to next week.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. The list of witnesses may be substantially reduced if the government is willing to agree to stipulations as to certain documents and witness testimony. We have conferred with the government regarding these stipulations, but as yet the government has not agreed to them. Accordingly, the list includes several witnesses who will be called to introduce certain documents or to testify about particular prior inconsistent statements.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2064893.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011342",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "United States",
+      "United Kingdom"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Dkt. 542",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "2064893.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011342"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a letter from Christian R. Everdell to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and appears to be in good condition."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011343.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "720",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 2 This includes the attorneys for \"Jane,\" \"Kate,\" and Carolyn. Pursuant to the Court's direction, the defense has conferred with the government about these witnesses. At this point, the government has not agreed to stipulate to their testimony and are awaiting a decision from the Court about the privilege issues previously briefed. We also note that three of the defense witnesses, which we have separately identified to the government, have requested to testify under their first names or under a pseudonym. The government opposes this request. The Court's ruling on the anonymity issue may impact the willingness of these witnesses to testify and, in turn, may affect the witness order. Based on current information the tentative witness order is as follows: 1. Cimberly Galindo Espinosa 2. Prof. Elizabeth Loftus 3. 4. 5. 6. Alexander Hamilton 7. Robert Glassman 8. Jack Scarola 9. Brad Edwards 10. Dominique Hippolite 11. Shoppers Travel records custodian 12. 13. Special Agent Elizabeth Nesbitt Kuyrkendall 14. Special Agent Jason Richards 15. Special Agent Amanda Young 16. Det. Paul Byrne 17. 18. 19. SA Timothy Slater 20. John Lopez 21. Robert Kelso 22. 23. 24. 2064893.1 DOJ-OGR-00011343",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 2",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This includes the attorneys for \"Jane,\" \"Kate,\" and Carolyn. Pursuant to the Court's direction, the defense has conferred with the government about these witnesses. At this point, the government has not agreed to stipulate to their testimony and are awaiting a decision from the Court about the privilege issues previously briefed. We also note that three of the defense witnesses, which we have separately identified to the government, have requested to testify under their first names or under a pseudonym. The government opposes this request. The Court's ruling on the anonymity issue may impact the willingness of these witnesses to testify and, in turn, may affect the witness order. Based on current information the tentative witness order is as follows:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Cimberly Galindo Espinosa 2. Prof. Elizabeth Loftus 3. 4. 5. 6. Alexander Hamilton 7. Robert Glassman 8. Jack Scarola 9. Brad Edwards 10. Dominique Hippolite 11. Shoppers Travel records custodian 12. 13. Special Agent Elizabeth Nesbitt Kuyrkendall 14. Special Agent Jason Richards 15. Special Agent Amanda Young 16. Det. Paul Byrne 17. 18. 19. SA Timothy Slater 20. John Lopez 21. Robert Kelso 22. 23. 24.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2064893.1 DOJ-OGR-00011343",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Kate",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Cimberly Galindo Espinosa",
+      "Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Alexander Hamilton",
+      "Robert Glassman",
+      "Jack Scarola",
+      "Brad Edwards",
+      "Dominique Hippolite",
+      "Elizabeth Nesbitt Kuyrkendall",
+      "Jason Richards",
+      "Amanda Young",
+      "Paul Byrne",
+      "Timothy Slater",
+      "John Lopez",
+      "Robert Kelso"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "720",
+      "2064893.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011343"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of witnesses. Some names in the witness list are redacted."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011344.json

@@ -0,0 +1,70 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "720",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 3 25. 26. Eva Dubin 27. Kelly Bovino 28. 29. Michelle Healy Sincerely, /s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600 cc: All Counsel of Record (By Email) 2064893.1 DOJ-OGR-00011344",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 720 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 3",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "25. 26. Eva Dubin 27. Kelly Bovino 28. 29. Michelle Healy",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Sincerely, /s/ Christian Everdell Christian R. Everdell COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor New York, New York 10022 (212) 957-7600",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: All Counsel of Record (By Email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2064893.1 DOJ-OGR-00011344",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Eva Dubin",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Christian Everdell",
+      "Christian R. Everdell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "720",
+      "2064893.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011344"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of names and a signature block. There are some redacted names in the list."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011345.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "721",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 9 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com December 14, 2021 VIA Email The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, I write under Rules of Evidence 608 and 403 to request that this Court preclude cross-examination of by the government concerning a regulatory settlement agreement involving Mr. related to , twenty years after the real estate transaction reflected in the documents he will serve as a foundational witness to admit. Mr. is a retired British Solicitor who represented Ms. Maxwell in the purchase of 44 Kinnerton Street, London SW1. The government has refused to stipulate to the admission of the 1996 Agreement for Sale for 44 Kinnerton Street and other related title documents, which show that Ms. Maxwell did not contract to purchase 44 Kinnerton Street until December 1996 (and did not complete the purchase until January 1997), long after Kate claims she engaged in a sexualized massage with Jeffrey Epstein in that residence. As a result, although the government does not contest the authenticity or relevance of these records, Ms. Maxwell DOJ-OGR-00011345",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 14, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "VIA Email The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan, I write under Rules of Evidence 608 and 403 to request that this Court preclude cross-examination of by the government concerning a regulatory settlement agreement involving Mr. related to , twenty years after the real estate transaction reflected in the documents he will serve as a foundational witness to admit. Mr. is a retired British Solicitor who represented Ms. Maxwell in the purchase of 44 Kinnerton Street, London SW1. The government has refused to stipulate to the admission of the 1996 Agreement for Sale for 44 Kinnerton Street and other related title documents, which show that Ms. Maxwell did not contract to purchase 44 Kinnerton Street until December 1996 (and did not complete the purchase until January 1997), long after Kate claims she engaged in a sexualized massage with Jeffrey Epstein in that residence. As a result, although the government does not contest the authenticity or relevance of these records, Ms. Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011345",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey Epstein",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Kate"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York",
+      "London",
+      "44 Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "December 1996",
+      "January 1997"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011345",
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 721"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a letter from Jeffrey S. Pagliuca to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter discusses a request to preclude cross-examination of a witness and references various documents and events related to the case. Some names and details are redacted."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011346.json

@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "721",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 2 must fly Mr. from the United Kingdom to New York only to authenticate these documents and lay a foundation for their admission as business records. Mr. has no fact testimony to offer about this case. Like William Brown, a DMV employee the government endorsed the night before it rested, Mr. only role as a witness will be to lay the foundation for the admission of an indisputably authentic and relevant exhibit. In a footnote in its December 12 letter, however, the government DOJ-OGR-00011346",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "must fly Mr. from the United Kingdom to New York only to authenticate these documents and lay a foundation for their admission as business records. Mr. has no fact testimony to offer about this case. Like William Brown, a DMV employee the government endorsed the night before it rested, Mr. only role as a witness will be to lay the foundation for the admission of an indisputably authentic and relevant exhibit. In a footnote in its December 12 letter, however, the government",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011346",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "William Brown"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "United Kingdom",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "December 12",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "721",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011346"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely for sensitive or personal information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011347.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "721",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 3 This Court should preclude the government from cross-examining Mr. on the topic of This line of examination is irrelevant is inadmissible under Rules 608 and 403. Rule 608 states: (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness's credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or DOJ-OGR-00011347",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should preclude the government from cross-examining Mr. on the topic of This line of examination is irrelevant is inadmissible under Rules 608 and 403.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Rule 608 states: (a) Reputation or Opinion Evidence. A witness's credibility may be attacked or supported by testimony about the witness's reputation for having a character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or by testimony in the form of an opinion about that character. But evidence of truthful character is admissible only after the witness's character for truthfulness has been attacked. (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. Except for a criminal conviction under Rule 609, extrinsic evidence is not admissible to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for truthfulness. But the court may, on cross-examination, allow them to be inquired into if they are probative of the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of: (1) the witness; or",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011347",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Mr."
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "721",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011347"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely due to sensitive information being withheld."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011351.json

@@ -0,0 +1,78 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "721",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 9 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 7 permitting impeachment of defendant-attorney, on trial for tax fraud, with questions about his disbarment for misappropriating client funds); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23, 25-26 (2d Cir. 1986) (no error in ruling that government could impeach defendant-attorney, on trial for defrauding the United States and bankruptcy fraud, with questions about his disbarment); United States v. Whitehead, 618 F.2d 523, 528-29 (4th Cir. 1980) (no error in ruling that defendant-attorney, on trial for racketeering involving prostitution and bribery, could be impeached with questions about his suspension from practice from the Virginia State Bar for \"conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation\"); United States v. Rubenstein, 151 F.2d 915, 919 (2d Cir. 1945) (no error in permitting impeachment of defendant-attorney, on trial for conspiracy to bring into the country an alien by false representations by concealment of material facts and by false documents, with questions about his disbarment for committing fraud on the divorce court). These case do not apply here because: The witnesses in those cases were offering substantive fact testimony. (In each of the cited cases the witness was also the defendant.) Mr. is akin to a custodian of records, and he will do nothing more than authenticate and lay the foundation for the admission of a document. The witnesses in those cases were impeached with questions about conduct that was probative of untruthfulness. Mr. is not alleged to have engaged in any conduct probative of untruthfulness, lying, deceit, or misrepresentation. The witnesses in those cases were impeached with questions about conduct related or similar to the conduct that was the subject of the trial. Mr. alleged conduct ) has no relationship DOJ-OGR-00011351",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 14, 2021 Page 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "permitting impeachment of defendant-attorney, on trial for tax fraud, with questions about his disbarment for misappropriating client funds); United States v. Weichert, 783 F.2d 23, 25-26 (2d Cir. 1986) (no error in ruling that government could impeach defendant-attorney, on trial for defrauding the United States and bankruptcy fraud, with questions about his disbarment); United States v. Whitehead, 618 F.2d 523, 528-29 (4th Cir. 1980) (no error in ruling that defendant-attorney, on trial for racketeering involving prostitution and bribery, could be impeached with questions about his suspension from practice from the Virginia State Bar for \"conduct involving deceit or misrepresentation\"); United States v. Rubenstein, 151 F.2d 915, 919 (2d Cir. 1945) (no error in permitting impeachment of defendant-attorney, on trial for conspiracy to bring into the country an alien by false representations by concealment of material facts and by false documents, with questions about his disbarment for committing fraud on the divorce court).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "These case do not apply here because:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The witnesses in those cases were offering substantive fact testimony. (In each of the cited cases the witness was also the defendant.) Mr. is akin to a custodian of records, and he will do nothing more than authenticate and lay the foundation for the admission of a document.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The witnesses in those cases were impeached with questions about conduct that was probative of untruthfulness. Mr. is not alleged to have engaged in any conduct probative of untruthfulness, lying, deceit, or misrepresentation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The witnesses in those cases were impeached with questions about conduct related or similar to the conduct that was the subject of the trial. Mr. alleged conduct ) has no relationship",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011351",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Weichert",
+      "Whitehead",
+      "Rubenstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Virginia State Bar",
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 721",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011351"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone and legal language. There are redactions in the text, indicating sensitive information has been removed."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011353.json

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "721",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 9\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 14, 2021\nPage 9\nwitness or other matters that are pertinent here, may confuse the jury and would create undue delay\"). The documents Ms. Maxwell will admit into evidence are from 1996 and early 1997.\nconcerns conduct occurring twenty years later. There is no justification for such a sideshow when all Mr.\nis doing is answering a few questions about the authenticity and admissibility of a discrete number of documents from 1996 and 1997.\nFor these reasons, this Court should preclude the anticipated line of cross-examination.\n\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\n\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\n\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011353",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 14, 2021\nPage 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "witness or other matters that are pertinent here, may confuse the jury and would create undue delay\"). The documents Ms. Maxwell will admit into evidence are from 1996 and early 1997.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "concerns conduct occurring twenty years later. There is no justification for such a sideshow when all Mr.\nis doing is answering a few questions about the authenticity and admissibility of a discrete number of documents from 1996 and 1997.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For these reasons, this Court should preclude the anticipated line of cross-examination.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "signature"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Bobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011353",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 14, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "1996",
+      "1997"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "721",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011353"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with some redacted text. The signature block contains a handwritten signature."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011354.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "721-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1\nEXHIBIT 1\nFILED UNDER SEAL\nDOJ-OGR-00011354",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXHIBIT 1\nFILED UNDER SEAL",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011354",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "721-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011354"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a case number and document number. It is marked as 'FILED UNDER SEAL' and has a unique identifier at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011355.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "721-2",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1\nEXHIBIT 2\nFILED UNDER SEAL\nDOJ-OGR-00011355",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 721-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXHIBIT 2\nFILED UNDER SEAL",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011355",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "721-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011355"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a case number and document number. The content is largely redacted or not visible, with a clear indication that it is filed under seal."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011356.json

@@ -0,0 +1,95 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "December 15, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 7\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 15, 2021\n\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\n\nRe:    United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\n\nDear Judge Nathan,\n\nI write to alert the Court and the government to the inconsistent statements Ms. Maxwell intends to prove up by extrinsic evidence during her case.\n\nMs. Maxwell conferred with the government about this issue. After conferral, and given the press of time, counsel concluded it was most efficient to provide this notice to the Court and the government and to allow the government to consider which other statements it would stipulate to in addition to those the parties have already agreed on.\n\nA. Jane Inconsistent Statements\n\n| Trial Testimony | 3500 material cite | 3500 quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 375:20 - 376:20 | 3509-008, p. 12, 4th paragraph, last sentence | From when Jane met Epstein to when she moved to New York she lived in the same house in Florida. This house was in a gated community called Bear Lakes. It was a 3 bedroom house. |\n| 447:2 - 447:20 | 3509-002, p. 1 | GM walked by w/ dog. JE came up to meet her. |\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011356",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 15, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "VIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re:    United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\n\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I write to alert the Court and the government to the inconsistent statements Ms. Maxwell intends to prove up by extrinsic evidence during her case.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell conferred with the government about this issue. After conferral, and given the press of time, counsel concluded it was most efficient to provide this notice to the Court and the government and to allow the government to consider which other statements it would stipulate to in addition to those the parties have already agreed on.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Jane Inconsistent Statements",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "| Trial Testimony | 3500 material cite | 3500 quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 375:20 - 376:20 | 3509-008, p. 12, 4th paragraph, last sentence | From when Jane met Epstein to when she moved to New York she lived in the same house in Florida. This house was in a gated community called Bear Lakes. It was a 3 bedroom house. |\n| 447:2 - 447:20 | 3509-002, p. 1 | GM walked by w/ dog. JE came up to meet her. |",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011356",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Jane",
+      "Epstein",
+      "GM",
+      "JE"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 722",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011356"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge regarding a court case. The letter is well-formatted and contains a table with specific details about inconsistent statements."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011357.json

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 7 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 2 448:12 - 15 3509-007, p. 3, para. 13 Doe was sitting alone on a bench between classes when Epstein and Maxwell approached her. 450:21 - 451:15 3509-028, p. 1 At first tea w/ Epstein, just Epstein, Mom & Jane were present. 451:4 - 452:21 3509-001, p. 2, 4th para. In the beginning, Jane would be with her mother and brothers at Epstein's house. 453:15 - 454:3 3509-003, p. 1, 4th para. Jane was not sure if Maxwell ever called her to make appointments. 454:4 - 9 3509-003, p.2, second line When in Florida, Epstein or his office would call Jane's house. 455:3 - 18 3509-008, p. 12, 4th paragraph They visited Jane one to two times at her house in Florida. This was about a year or two after meeting him. 455:19 - 13 3509-008, p. 11, last full paragraph At some point Maxwell and Epstein came to Jane's house prior to the abuse. 470:21 - 471:18 3509-005, p. 3, first paragraph Fairly early on Maxwell 'joined in' and started taking her clothes off. This was about six months into being with them. Jane was still 14 at this time. Jane does not have a specific memory of the first time. 471:18 - 22 3509-008, omission 473:24 - 20 3509-008, p. 4, first full paragraph The first time Maxwell was involved in the sexual encounters with Epstein and Jane, there were two other girls there as well. 475:7 - 18 3509-008, p. 5, 3rd full paragraph When Jane was asked if there were times where it was only Epstein, Maxwell, and her in the room, Jane was not sure. As Epstein progressed incidents sexually with Jane, it would go back and forth between just being solely with Jane and going back to the group setting. 475:19 - 476:1 3509-008, p. 3, 2nd full paragraph Jane does not have a recollection, is not sure if Maxwell touched her during these encounters. DOJ-OGR-00011357",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "448:12 - 15 3509-007, p. 3, para. 13 Doe was sitting alone on a bench between classes when Epstein and Maxwell approached her.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "450:21 - 451:15 3509-028, p. 1 At first tea w/ Epstein, just Epstein, Mom & Jane were present.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "451:4 - 452:21 3509-001, p. 2, 4th para. In the beginning, Jane would be with her mother and brothers at Epstein's house.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "453:15 - 454:3 3509-003, p. 1, 4th para. Jane was not sure if Maxwell ever called her to make appointments.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "454:4 - 9 3509-003, p.2, second line When in Florida, Epstein or his office would call Jane's house.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "455:3 - 18 3509-008, p. 12, 4th paragraph They visited Jane one to two times at her house in Florida. This was about a year or two after meeting him.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "455:19 - 13 3509-008, p. 11, last full paragraph At some point Maxwell and Epstein came to Jane's house prior to the abuse.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "470:21 - 471:18 3509-005, p. 3, first paragraph Fairly early on Maxwell 'joined in' and started taking her clothes off. This was about six months into being with them. Jane was still 14 at this time. Jane does not have a specific memory of the first time.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "471:18 - 22 3509-008, omission",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "473:24 - 20 3509-008, p. 4, first full paragraph The first time Maxwell was involved in the sexual encounters with Epstein and Jane, there were two other girls there as well.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "475:7 - 18 3509-008, p. 5, 3rd full paragraph When Jane was asked if there were times where it was only Epstein, Maxwell, and her in the room, Jane was not sure. As Epstein progressed incidents sexually with Jane, it would go back and forth between just being solely with Jane and going back to the group setting.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "475:19 - 476:1 3509-008, p. 3, 2nd full paragraph Jane does not have a recollection, is not sure if Maxwell touched her during these encounters.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011357",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Epstein",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Jane",
+      "Doe"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "Florida"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "722",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011357"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case against Epstein and Maxwell. The content is sensitive and describes alleged sexual abuse."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011358.json

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 7 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 3 476:2-4 3509-008, p. 10, 4th paragraph Jane was asked if Maxwell ever touched or kissed her to which she answered, \"I don't think so.\" 476:8-10 3509-005, p. 4, 4th full paragraph, last sentence Jane was not sure if Maxwell talked about how Epstein liked to be massaged. 476:14-16 3509-008, p. 10, 1st full paragraph Jane cannot remember if Maxwell was ever present for instances of oral sex or hand jobs with Epstein and Jane. 476:17-19 3509-008, p. 9, last paragraph Jane was then asked if Maxwell was present for when any of these 4 options (masturbation, hand job, oral sex, and sex) were performed on her and she responded, \"I can't remember.\" 477:2-5 3509-008, p. 9, last paragraph Jane was then asked if Maxwell was present for when any of these 4 options (masturbation, hand job, oral sex, and sex) were performed on her and she responded, \"I can't remember.\" 478:8-23 3509-008, p. 5, last paragraph When Jane was asked if there were times when it was only Epstein, Maxwell and her in the room, Jane was not sure. 479:12 - 480:8 3509-005, p. 3, second full paragraph Jane does not have a recollection, is not sure if Maxwell touched her during these encounters. 480:9-25 3509-008, p. 10, 1st full paragraph Jane cannot remember if Maxwell was ever present for instances of oral sex or hand jobs with Epstein and Jane. 497:16 - 498:7 3509-005, p. 2, 2d paragraph from bottom Jane's first experience with abuse was when she was about 14 years old in New York. She met Epstein to take head shots and that is when he masturbated. 499:7 - 23 507:18 - 508:8 3509-008, p. 8, 4th full paragraph Her first trip to New York was to just go and have fun. 506:12 - 507:4 3509-001, p. 2 When Jane was 14 years old, she flew with Epstein and Maxwell to New York City to see DOJ-OGR-00011358",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 15, 2021 Page 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "476:2-4 3509-008, p. 10, 4th paragraph Jane was asked if Maxwell ever touched or kissed her to which she answered, \"I don't think so.\"",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "476:8-10 3509-005, p. 4, 4th full paragraph, last sentence Jane was not sure if Maxwell talked about how Epstein liked to be massaged.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "476:14-16 3509-008, p. 10, 1st full paragraph Jane cannot remember if Maxwell was ever present for instances of oral sex or hand jobs with Epstein and Jane.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "476:17-19 3509-008, p. 9, last paragraph Jane was then asked if Maxwell was present for when any of these 4 options (masturbation, hand job, oral sex, and sex) were performed on her and she responded, \"I can't remember.\"",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "477:2-5 3509-008, p. 9, last paragraph Jane was then asked if Maxwell was present for when any of these 4 options (masturbation, hand job, oral sex, and sex) were performed on her and she responded, \"I can't remember.\"",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "478:8-23 3509-008, p. 5, last paragraph When Jane was asked if there were times when it was only Epstein, Maxwell and her in the room, Jane was not sure.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "479:12 - 480:8 3509-005, p. 3, second full paragraph Jane does not have a recollection, is not sure if Maxwell touched her during these encounters.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "480:9-25 3509-008, p. 10, 1st full paragraph Jane cannot remember if Maxwell was ever present for instances of oral sex or hand jobs with Epstein and Jane.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "497:16 - 498:7 3509-005, p. 2, 2d paragraph from bottom Jane's first experience with abuse was when she was about 14 years old in New York. She met Epstein to take head shots and that is when he masturbated.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "499:7 - 23 507:18 - 508:8 3509-008, p. 8, 4th full paragraph Her first trip to New York was to just go and have fun.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "506:12 - 507:4 3509-001, p. 2 When Jane was 14 years old, she flew with Epstein and Maxwell to New York City to see",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011358",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "New York City"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 722",
+      "3509-008",
+      "3509-005",
+      "3509-001",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011358"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case against Maxwell and Epstein. The content is sensitive and discusses abuse allegations."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011359.json

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 4\n\n|  |  | The Lion King....The first time she traveled with them nothing inappropriate happened.\n| 512:11 - 513:7 | 3509-008, p. 6, 8th paragraph | Re first NM trip: She recalled going hiking. She remembered not doing too much and just sitting around mostly.\n| 513:8 - 20 | 3509-008, p. 7, last full paragraph | She did not recall any specific abuse that occurred\n| 514:2 - 11 | 3509-008, p. 7-8, overflow paragraph | Jane was asked if she recalled any specific abuse that occurred in New Mexico and she stated she was not sure.\n| 514:1 - 515:7 | 3509-008, p. 8, 1st overflow paragraph | The place was dark and she did not recall many details of this location. If there was abuse that occurred, it wouldn’t have been a group thing but she cannot recall anything specific.\n| 515:8 - 516:10 | 3509-008, p. 11, top paragraph first sentence | Jane was asked about the New Mexico trips she took and if she recalled any specific abuse that occurred there to which she answered she did not remember.\n| 521:9 - 522-22 | 3509-001, p. 3, 2nd full paragraph | In the beginning before the pool house incident, Epstein showed off to Jane...Epstein took Jane in a dark green car to Mar-a-lago to meet Donald Trump.\n| 532:12 - 17 | 3509-001, p. 2, 2nd full paragraph | Epstein, Maxwell, or an assistant would call Jane’s house phone. There was an assistant named Lesley, Maxwell’s assistant named Emmy Taylor, and another assistant named Michelle.\n| 596:7 - 25 | 3509-007, paragraph 20 | In 1996, when Doc was 16 years old, Epstein moved Doc to New York City.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011359",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Lion King....The first time she traveled with them nothing inappropriate happened.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re first NM trip: She recalled going hiking. She remembered not doing too much and just sitting around mostly.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "She did not recall any specific abuse that occurred",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jane was asked if she recalled any specific abuse that occurred in New Mexico and she stated she was not sure.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The place was dark and she did not recall many details of this location. If there was abuse that occurred, it wouldn’t have been a group thing but she cannot recall anything specific.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jane was asked about the New Mexico trips she took and if she recalled any specific abuse that occurred there to which she answered she did not remember.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In the beginning before the pool house incident, Epstein showed off to Jane...Epstein took Jane in a dark green car to Mar-a-lago to meet Donald Trump.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Epstein, Maxwell, or an assistant would call Jane’s house phone. There was an assistant named Lesley, Maxwell’s assistant named Emmy Taylor, and another assistant named Michelle.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In 1996, when Doc was 16 years old, Epstein moved Doc to New York City.",
+      "position": "table"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011359",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Epstein",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Donald Trump",
+      "Lesley",
+      "Emmy Taylor",
+      "Michelle",
+      "Doc"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New Mexico",
+      "Mar-a-lago",
+      "New York City"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "1996"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 722",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011359"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text includes references to specific pages and paragraphs of other documents. The content discusses the testimony of a witness named Jane regarding her interactions with Epstein and Maxwell."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011360.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 5\nB. Carolyn Inconsistent Statements1\n| Trial Testimony | Prior Inconsistent Statement Cite | Prior Inconsistent Statement Quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1564: 4-7, 1565:18-23 | 3505-005, page 1, 2d paragraph | Virginia approached [Caryoln] at a party and asked her if she would like to make $300.00. |\n| 1567: 7-19 | 3505-005, page 1, 2d paragraph | Virginia explained that [Carolyn] could make $300.00 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage. |\n| 1568: 22-25 | 3505-005, page 1, 3rd paragraph | Virigina told [Carolyn] she could make a lot of money real fast. |\n| 1570:23 – 1571:2 | 3505-043, page 33, deposition pages 125:24-126:6 | Q. [T]he total period of time that you had any interaction with Mr. Epstein was between May of '02 and August of '03.\nA. Uh-huh.\nQ. That is another say of saying it is the first time you went is May of '02 and the last time you went was August of '03.\nA. Yeah |\nC. Annie Farmer Inconsistent Statements\n| Trial Testimony | 3500 material cite | 3500 quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 2151:2 – 16 | 3514-001, p. 2, 2d full paragraph | Originally Maria was going to accompany Annie to New Mexico. |\n1 The government has agreed to stipulate to the admissibility of the prior inconsistent statements Carolyn was confronted with at transcript page 1610:9-15 and page 1611:1-5.\nDOJ-OGR-00011360",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "B. Carolyn Inconsistent Statements1",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "| Trial Testimony | Prior Inconsistent Statement Cite | Prior Inconsistent Statement Quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 1564: 4-7, 1565:18-23 | 3505-005, page 1, 2d paragraph | Virginia approached [Caryoln] at a party and asked her if she would like to make $300.00. |\n| 1567: 7-19 | 3505-005, page 1, 2d paragraph | Virginia explained that [Carolyn] could make $300.00 by providing a man in Palm Beach with a massage. |\n| 1568: 22-25 | 3505-005, page 1, 3rd paragraph | Virigina told [Carolyn] she could make a lot of money real fast. |\n| 1570:23 – 1571:2 | 3505-043, page 33, deposition pages 125:24-126:6 | Q. [T]he total period of time that you had any interaction with Mr. Epstein was between May of '02 and August of '03.\nA. Uh-huh.\nQ. That is another say of saying it is the first time you went is May of '02 and the last time you went was August of '03.\nA. Yeah |",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. Annie Farmer Inconsistent Statements",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "| Trial Testimony | 3500 material cite | 3500 quote |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 2151:2 – 16 | 3514-001, p. 2, 2d full paragraph | Originally Maria was going to accompany Annie to New Mexico. |",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 The government has agreed to stipulate to the admissibility of the prior inconsistent statements Carolyn was confronted with at transcript page 1610:9-15 and page 1611:1-5.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011360",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Carolyn",
+      "Virginia",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Annie",
+      "Maria"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Palm Beach",
+      "New Mexico"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "May of '02",
+      "August of '03"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 722",
+      "3505-005",
+      "3505-043",
+      "3514-001",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011360"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a table comparing trial testimony to prior inconsistent statements made by Carolyn and Annie Farmer. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011361.json

@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 6\n2160:12 - 2161:25 | 3514-001, p. 3, 2d full paragraph | The chef prepared dinner and all three ate together.\n2165:7 - 2166:6 | 3514-001, p. 2, last paragraph | They spent a significant amount of time horseback riding.\n2169:22 - 2170:12 | Omission | Never told the government in any interview \"explain[ing] why [the boots] were not used previously and then I did wear them.\"\n2174:18 - 2176:20\n2194:20 - 2195:18 | 3514-012, p. 2, 3/4 way down | At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot.\n2182:19 - 2183:15 | 3514-012, p. 3, section \"GM massage of AF\" | GM massage of AF...\"rubbed around breasts, not on her nipples or nipple area\"; \"was awkward and uncomfortable but not explicitly sexual - no touching of nipples, genitals, etc.\"\n2185:7 - 12\n2185:21 - 2186:13 | 3514-012, p. 4, \"Incident in the bed\" | \"Do not remember it being a sexual touch - do not remember grabbing or touching her breasts or genitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers.\"\n2195:10 - 17 | 3514-012, p. 2, 3/4 way down | At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot.\n2197:23 - 2198: | 3514-001 | Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\"\n2209:19 - 2213:5 | 3514-001 | Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted\nDOJ-OGR-00011361",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2160:12 - 2161:25 | 3514-001, p. 3, 2d full paragraph | The chef prepared dinner and all three ate together.\n2165:7 - 2166:6 | 3514-001, p. 2, last paragraph | They spent a significant amount of time horseback riding.\n2169:22 - 2170:12 | Omission | Never told the government in any interview \"explain[ing] why [the boots] were not used previously and then I did wear them.\"\n2174:18 - 2176:20\n2194:20 - 2195:18 | 3514-012, p. 2, 3/4 way down | At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot.\n2182:19 - 2183:15 | 3514-012, p. 3, section \"GM massage of AF\" | GM massage of AF...\"rubbed around breasts, not on her nipples or nipple area\"; \"was awkward and uncomfortable but not explicitly sexual - no touching of nipples, genitals, etc.\"\n2185:7 - 12\n2185:21 - 2186:13 | 3514-012, p. 4, \"Incident in the bed\" | \"Do not remember it being a sexual touch - do not remember grabbing or touching her breasts or genitals. Did not, e.g., feel his erect penis. Body generally against hers.\"\n2195:10 - 17 | 3514-012, p. 2, 3/4 way down | At that time, limited to massaging and talking about the foot massage. Do not remember the specifics re: what JE was saying. Do not remember it being sexualized or going beyond massaging JE foot.\n2197:23 - 2198: | 3514-001 | Omission - never told anything about GM being \"disinterested\"\n2209:19 - 2213:5 | 3514-001 | Omission - no mention of wanting JE or GM prosecuted",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011361",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "JE",
+      "GM",
+      "AF"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "722",
+      "3514-001",
+      "3514-012",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011361"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or a summary of witness testimony. The content includes details about interactions between individuals, including massages and other physical interactions. The document is likely related to a legal case involving allegations of misconduct."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011362.json

@@ -0,0 +1,94 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "722",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 7\n| | 2017 Kuyrkendall declaration | Kuyrkendall - declaration language |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 2224:6 - 14 | 3514-012 | Each of the statements that the physical contact was \"not sexualized\" or \"explicitly sexual\" |\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nMs. Maxwell has a constitutional right to present evidence in her defense and to confront her accusers. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. These rights guarantee her the ability to prove up the inconsistent statements identified above.\n\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\n\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\n\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011362",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 722 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "| | 2017 Kuyrkendall declaration | Kuyrkendall - declaration language |\n| --- | --- | --- |\n| 2224:6 - 14 | 3514-012 | Each of the statements that the physical contact was \"not sexualized\" or \"explicitly sexual\" |",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CONCLUSION",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Maxwell has a constitutional right to present evidence in her defense and to confront her accusers. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI. These rights guarantee her the ability to prove up the inconsistent statements identified above.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011362",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "722",
+      "2224:6 - 14",
+      "3514-012",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011362"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with one signature present. There are no visible stamps or redactions. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011363.json

@@ -0,0 +1,99 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "December 16, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 13\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 16, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nI write in response to the government's motion to preclude testimony from Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino.1 The government claims that testimony from Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is inadmissible because: (1) it does not contradict Jane's testimony; and (2) it is improper impeachment on a collateral matter. The government is wrong.\nBACKGROUND\nOn the stand, Jane alleged that several other women were involved in sexual conduct and group sexualized massages with her, Mr. Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell. These women included Eva, Michelle, and Kelly. TR. at 523-30. Although Jane has not always been consistent with the government about the involvement of these women, she testified that all these women were involved in or could \"confirm\" what happened in the group sexualized massages that are the\n1 The government also moved to preclude certain testimony from John Lopez. That part of the motion is moot because Ms. Maxwell will not call Mr. Lopez as a witness.\nDOJ-OGR-00011363",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 16, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "VIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I write in response to the government's motion to preclude testimony from Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino.1 The government claims that testimony from Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is inadmissible because: (1) it does not contradict Jane's testimony; and (2) it is improper impeachment on a collateral matter. The government is wrong.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BACKGROUND",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On the stand, Jane alleged that several other women were involved in sexual conduct and group sexualized massages with her, Mr. Epstein, and Ms. Maxwell. These women included Eva, Michelle, and Kelly. TR. at 523-30. Although Jane has not always been consistent with the government about the involvement of these women, she testified that all these women were involved in or could \"confirm\" what happened in the group sexualized massages that are the",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 The government also moved to preclude certain testimony from John Lopez. That part of the motion is moot because Ms. Maxwell will not call Mr. Lopez as a witness.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011363",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Eva Dubin",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Jane",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "John Lopez",
+      "Mr. Lopez"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011363"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a court case involving Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and has a professional tone. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011366.json

@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 4\nthat the alleged sexualized massages occurred. These alleged sexualized massages are the basis of the charges in this case.\nThe government seeks to preclude testimony from Eva, Michelle, and Kelly on the ground that their testimony does not contradict Jane's allegations and that, in any event, their testimony concerns \"collateral matters\" The government is wrong on both counts.\nA. Eva Dubin's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony.\nEva Dubin's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony. As to Eva, this is what Jane testified to on the stand:\n- \"[A] woman named Eva . . . joined in\" the group sexualized massages. TR at 525.\n- Eva \"joined in [the group sexualized massages] with Sophie.\" Id. at 526.\n- Eva \"joined in the group scenario.\" Id.\n- Eva \"knew the routine.\" Id.\n- Eva \"could confirm her story.\" Id.\nIn her interviews with the government, Jane had this to say about Eva. In a February 2020 interview with the government, see 3509-008, p 4, Jane said:\n- Jane's first sexual encounter with Mr. Epstein occurred in the pool house. Id. at 4.\n- The next sexual encounter occurred in the bedroom or the massage room. Id.\n- There was a short period of time in which the encounters only involved Mr. Epstein. Id.\n- Ms. Maxwell then became involved. Id.\n- The first time Ms. Maxwell was involved, there were two other girls as well—Sophie and Eva, who joined in. Id.\nDOJ-OGR-00011366",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "that the alleged sexualized massages occurred. These alleged sexualized massages are the basis of the charges in this case.\nThe government seeks to preclude testimony from Eva, Michelle, and Kelly on the ground that their testimony does not contradict Jane's allegations and that, in any event, their testimony concerns \"collateral matters\" The government is wrong on both counts.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. Eva Dubin's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony.\nEva Dubin's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony. As to Eva, this is what Jane testified to on the stand:\n- \"[A] woman named Eva . . . joined in\" the group sexualized massages. TR at 525.\n- Eva \"joined in [the group sexualized massages] with Sophie.\" Id. at 526.\n- Eva \"joined in the group scenario.\" Id.\n- Eva \"knew the routine.\" Id.\n- Eva \"could confirm her story.\" Id.\nIn her interviews with the government, Jane had this to say about Eva. In a February 2020 interview with the government, see 3509-008, p 4, Jane said:\n- Jane's first sexual encounter with Mr. Epstein occurred in the pool house. Id. at 4.\n- The next sexual encounter occurred in the bedroom or the massage room. Id.\n- There was a short period of time in which the encounters only involved Mr. Epstein. Id.\n- Ms. Maxwell then became involved. Id.\n- The first time Ms. Maxwell was involved, there were two other girls as well—Sophie and Eva, who joined in. Id.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011366",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Eva",
+      "Michelle",
+      "Kelly",
+      "Jane",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Sophie",
+      "Eva Dubin"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "February 2020"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "723",
+      "3509-008",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011366"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving allegations of sexual misconduct. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011367.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 5\n- The first time Ms. Maxwell was involved, Ms. Maxwell guided it, but the Sophie and Eva \"knew the routine.\" Id.\n- Sometimes it started with Mr. Epstein wanting a massage and saying, \"you girls come with me.\"\n- Sometimes the girls would make out with each other during these encounters. Id.\nEva will contradict this testimony.\nContrary to the government's argument, there is no doubt that Eva Dubin, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Eva\" Jane claimed both during her testimony and the February 2020 interview was involved in group sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein and \"could confirm her story.\"\n- Lawrence Visoski testified that Eva Dubin was \"one of Mr. Epstein's original first girlfriends,\" now his ex-girlfriend, a former Miss Sweden, who went on to marry Glenn Dubin. TR at 262-63.\n- Jane told the government that \"Eva\" was Mr. Epstein's \"ex-girlfriend and they stayed friends.\" See 3509-008 p 7.\n- In an August 2021 interview with the government, see 3509-020, Jane told the government that \"Eva\" was the \"Ms Sweden Lady.\" Id. at 1. Jane said she \"does not remember\" Eva \"being involved in massages,\" but maybe Eva \"aged out of that.\" Id.\n- Although Jane did not recall Eva being involved in the massages when she spoke with the government in August 2021, she admitted that she did \"not recall there being another Eva.\" Id. at 2.\nThe upshot of Jane's statements is this:\nDOJ-OGR-00011367",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 5",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "- The first time Ms. Maxwell was involved, Ms. Maxwell guided it, but the Sophie and Eva \"knew the routine.\" Id.\n- Sometimes it started with Mr. Epstein wanting a massage and saying, \"you girls come with me.\"\n- Sometimes the girls would make out with each other during these encounters. Id.\nEva will contradict this testimony.\nContrary to the government's argument, there is no doubt that Eva Dubin, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Eva\" Jane claimed both during her testimony and the February 2020 interview was involved in group sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein and \"could confirm her story.\"\n- Lawrence Visoski testified that Eva Dubin was \"one of Mr. Epstein's original first girlfriends,\" now his ex-girlfriend, a former Miss Sweden, who went on to marry Glenn Dubin. TR at 262-63.\n- Jane told the government that \"Eva\" was Mr. Epstein's \"ex-girlfriend and they stayed friends.\" See 3509-008 p 7.\n- In an August 2021 interview with the government, see 3509-020, Jane told the government that \"Eva\" was the \"Ms Sweden Lady.\" Id. at 1. Jane said she \"does not remember\" Eva \"being involved in massages,\" but maybe Eva \"aged out of that.\" Id.\n- Although Jane did not recall Eva being involved in the massages when she spoke with the government in August 2021, she admitted that she did \"not recall there being another Eva.\" Id. at 2.\nThe upshot of Jane's statements is this:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011367",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Sophie",
+      "Eva",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Jane",
+      "Lawrence Visoski",
+      "Glenn Dubin"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "February 2020",
+      "August 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723",
+      "3509-008",
+      "3509-020",
+      "262-63",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011367"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is typed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 5 of a 13-page document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011370.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 8\nin the group massages. To the contrary, in a September 2019 interview, Jane told the government that Emmy and Michelle \"were involved in the sexual contact.\" See 3509-001, p 4. Jane made this claim about Michelle when discussing the abuse she claims to have suffered in New York when she was \"young.\" Id.\nMichelle's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony because she will deny being involved in the sexualized massages that Jane claims she was a part of.\nContrary to the government's argument, there is no doubt Michelle Healy, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Michelle\" who Jane claimed both during her testimony and her September 2019 interview was involved in group sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein. Jane told the government in September 2019 that Michelle was \"short\" and that she introduced Jane to \"white Russians,\" a vodka cocktail. See 3509-001, p 4. Michelle Healy is short, and Michelle will testify that she drinks white Russians. And, as Jane testified on the stand, Michelle will testify that she was good friends with Emmy Taylor, a point the government ignores in its letter.\nAs with Eva, Ms. Maxwell has a right to present the testimony of Michelle, who will deny Jane's allegations of being involved the group sexualized massages that are the basis of the charges in this case.4\n4 Michelle has other relevant testimony to offer, in addition to contradicting Jane's account of the group sexualized massages. The government does not challenge this other testimony.\nDOJ-OGR-00011370",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "in the group massages. To the contrary, in a September 2019 interview, Jane told the government that Emmy and Michelle \"were involved in the sexual contact.\" See 3509-001, p 4. Jane made this claim about Michelle when discussing the abuse she claims to have suffered in New York when she was \"young.\" Id.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Michelle's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony because she will deny being involved in the sexualized massages that Jane claims she was a part of.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Contrary to the government's argument, there is no doubt Michelle Healy, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Michelle\" who Jane claimed both during her testimony and her September 2019 interview was involved in group sexualized massages with Mr. Epstein. Jane told the government in September 2019 that Michelle was \"short\" and that she introduced Jane to \"white Russians,\" a vodka cocktail. See 3509-001, p 4. Michelle Healy is short, and Michelle will testify that she drinks white Russians. And, as Jane testified on the stand, Michelle will testify that she was good friends with Emmy Taylor, a point the government ignores in its letter.",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "As with Eva, Ms. Maxwell has a right to present the testimony of Michelle, who will deny Jane's allegations of being involved the group sexualized massages that are the basis of the charges in this case.4",
+      "position": "main content"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4 Michelle has other relevant testimony to offer, in addition to contradicting Jane's account of the group sexualized massages. The government does not challenge this other testimony.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011370",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Emmy",
+      "Michelle",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Eva",
+      "Emmy Taylor",
+      "Mr. Epstein",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "September 2019",
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723",
+      "3509-001",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011370"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the testimony of various witnesses and their potential contradictions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011371.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 9\nC. Kelly Bovino's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony.\nKelly's testimony will also contradict Jane's testimony. As to Kelly, this is what Jane testified to on the stand:\n- Kelly was \"another person [Jane] remembered.\" TR at 527.\n- Jane remembered Kelly's last name. Id.\n- Kelly was a model who was older than her. Id.\n- Kelly could \"back up what [Jane] was talking about.\" Id.\nDuring her February 2020 interview with the government, Jane told agents that Kelly's last name was \"Bovino\" and that Jane \"felt [Kelly] could back up what [Jane] had talked about regarding Maxwell. Jane described Kelly as being a model, who was older than [Jane] and knew Epstein and Maxwell before she did.\" See 3509-008, p 5-6.\nKelly's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony because Kelly will not back up Jane's account of the sexualized group massages. And there is no doubt Kelly Bovino, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Kelly\" who Jane claimed was \"back up\" what Jane alleged. Jane admitted that Kelly's last name was \"Bovino.\"\nAs with Eva and Michelle, Ms. Maxwell has a right to present the testimony of Kelly, who will contradict Jane's testimony about the sexualized massages that are the very basis of the charges in this case.\nD. These are not collateral matters.\nThe government's invocation of Rule 608 and the phrase \"collateral issue\" miss the mark entirely. As to Rule 608, the testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is not being offered \"to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "C. Kelly Bovino's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Kelly's testimony will also contradict Jane's testimony. As to Kelly, this is what Jane testified to on the stand:\n- Kelly was \"another person [Jane] remembered.\" TR at 527.\n- Jane remembered Kelly's last name. Id.\n- Kelly was a model who was older than her. Id.\n- Kelly could \"back up what [Jane] was talking about.\" Id.\nDuring her February 2020 interview with the government, Jane told agents that Kelly's last name was \"Bovino\" and that Jane \"felt [Kelly] could back up what [Jane] had talked about regarding Maxwell. Jane described Kelly as being a model, who was older than [Jane] and knew Epstein and Maxwell before she did.\" See 3509-008, p 5-6.\nKelly's testimony will contradict Jane's testimony because Kelly will not back up Jane's account of the sexualized group massages. And there is no doubt Kelly Bovino, who Ms. Maxwell intends to call as a witness, is the same \"Kelly\" who Jane claimed was \"back up\" what Jane alleged. Jane admitted that Kelly's last name was \"Bovino.\"\nAs with Eva and Michelle, Ms. Maxwell has a right to present the testimony of Kelly, who will contradict Jane's testimony about the sexualized massages that are the very basis of the charges in this case.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "D. These are not collateral matters.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government's invocation of Rule 608 and the phrase \"collateral issue\" miss the mark entirely. As to Rule 608, the testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly is not being offered \"to prove specific instances of a witness's conduct in order to attack or support the witness's character for",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Jane",
+      "Eva",
+      "Michelle",
+      "Maxwell",
+      "Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "February 2020",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723",
+      "TR at 527",
+      "3509-008"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the testimony of various witnesses and the relevance of their statements to the case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011373.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 16, 2021 Page 11 contradiction, prior inconsistent statement, bias and mental capacity) to Rules 402 and 403.\").5 Cf. United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1155 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[A] matter is collateral if it could not have been introduced in evidence for any purpose other than impeachment.”).\nE. The government’s other arguments fail.\nThe government offers three other arguments. First, the government faults Ms. Maxwell for not showing Jane pictures of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly. Nothing required Ms. Maxwell to do that, and the government cites no authority for its argument.\nWhat’s more telling is that the government never showed Jane their photographs. The government’s deliberate choice to muddy the waters is not Ms. Maxwell’s fault or her problem.\nThe record shows Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino are the “Eva,” “Michelle,” and “Kelly” who Jane testified about. Their testimony is admissible.\nSecond, it’s irrelevant that Ms. Maxwell did not use last names in her examination of Jane. For one thing, Jane also did not use last names in her interviews with the FBI. For another thing, Eva Dubin’s name was already on the record from Mr. Visoski’s testimony, and Jane admitted knowing Kelly’s last name. Finally, Ms. Maxwell did not use Michelle’s last name in part because she intended to ask this Court for anonymity. It’s immaterial that this Court subsequently denied that request.\nFinally, the government mistakenly relies on cases purporting to hold that a defendant, through cross-examination, cannot open the door to proving collateral issues by extrinsic\n5 The government quite rightly does not make a 403 argument. And its relevance argument—that the testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly does not contradict Jane’s testimony—is wrong, as described above.\nDOJ-OGR-00011373",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 11 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 16, 2021 Page 11",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "contradiction, prior inconsistent statement, bias and mental capacity) to Rules 402 and 403.\").5 Cf. United States v. Schuler, 458 F.3d 1148, 1155 (10th Cir. 2006) (“[A] matter is collateral if it could not have been introduced in evidence for any purpose other than impeachment.”).",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "E. The government’s other arguments fail.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The government offers three other arguments. First, the government faults Ms. Maxwell for not showing Jane pictures of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly. Nothing required Ms. Maxwell to do that, and the government cites no authority for its argument.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "What’s more telling is that the government never showed Jane their photographs. The government’s deliberate choice to muddy the waters is not Ms. Maxwell’s fault or her problem.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The record shows Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino are the “Eva,” “Michelle,” and “Kelly” who Jane testified about. Their testimony is admissible.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, it’s irrelevant that Ms. Maxwell did not use last names in her examination of Jane. For one thing, Jane also did not use last names in her interviews with the FBI. For another thing, Eva Dubin’s name was already on the record from Mr. Visoski’s testimony, and Jane admitted knowing Kelly’s last name. Finally, Ms. Maxwell did not use Michelle’s last name in part because she intended to ask this Court for anonymity. It’s immaterial that this Court subsequently denied that request.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, the government mistakenly relies on cases purporting to hold that a defendant, through cross-examination, cannot open the door to proving collateral issues by extrinsic",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5 The government quite rightly does not make a 403 argument. And its relevance argument—that the testimony of Eva, Michelle, and Kelly does not contradict Jane’s testimony—is wrong, as described above.",
+      "position": "footnote"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011373",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Eva Dubin",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Jane",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Mr. Visoski"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "FBI"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011373"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing, likely a legal brief or memorandum, discussing the admissibility of certain testimony and evidence in a criminal case. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011374.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 12 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 16, 2021 Page 12\nevidence. Gov. Letter, pp 3, 8. Even if that is what those cases hold (which Ms. Maxwell disputes), the cases have no applicability here, because the details of the sexualized massages are not collateral issues. They are the central issues in this case.\nAt best, the government's arguments go to weight, not admissibility. If the government wants to argue that Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino are not the Eva, Michelle, and Kelly who Jane was referring to, the government is free to make that argument. In fact, the government has already made precisely that argument as to , responding to the flight logs' use of the name . But that argument is no basis for denying Ms. Maxwell her constitutional right to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI.\nCONCLUSION\nThis Court should deny the government's motion.\nDOJ-OGR-00011374",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 12 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan December 16, 2021 Page 12",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "evidence. Gov. Letter, pp 3, 8. Even if that is what those cases hold (which Ms. Maxwell disputes), the cases have no applicability here, because the details of the sexualized massages are not collateral issues. They are the central issues in this case.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "At best, the government's arguments go to weight, not admissibility. If the government wants to argue that Eva Dubin, Michelle Healy, and Kelly Bovino are not the Eva, Michelle, and Kelly who Jane was referring to, the government is free to make that argument. In fact, the government has already made precisely that argument as to , responding to the flight logs' use of the name . But that argument is no basis for denying Ms. Maxwell her constitutional right to present a defense. U.S. Const. amends. V, VI.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CONCLUSION",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court should deny the government's motion.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011374",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Eva Dubin",
+      "Michelle Healy",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Jane"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 723"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with some redacted text. The redactions are represented by blacked-out boxes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011375.json

@@ -0,0 +1,87 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "document_number": "723",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 13 of 13\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 13\n\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\n\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\n\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\n\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\n\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011375",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 723 Filed 07/12/22 Page 13 of 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 16, 2021\nPage 13",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Bobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011375",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "723",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011375"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and contact information for attorneys. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011376.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "724",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 16, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,\nI write in response to this Court's order.\nAs to the first question, federal law is clear. \"No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed.R.Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.\" United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).\nAs to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).\nThus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has \"under any rational theory it might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said.\" United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)\nDOJ-OGR-00011376",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "December 16, 2021\nVIA Email\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I write in response to this Court's order.\nAs to the first question, federal law is clear. \"No longer, when a lawyer asks a witness whether he made a certain statement, written or not, is the lawyer required (as he was at common law, see Note of Advisory Committee to Fed.R.Evid. 613(a)) to show the statement or disclose its contents to the witness, though he must upon request show it to opposing counsel.\" United States v. Marks, 816 F.2d 1207, 1210 (7th Cir. 1986) (Posner, J.).\nAs to the second question a statement provable by extrinsic evidence even though the witness affirms that the 3500 material contains the inconsistent statement and also expresses disagreement with the substance. By disagreeing with the substance, the witness has logically and necessarily denied making the statement (or failed to remember making the statement).\nThus, under Rule 613, the statement is inconsistent because it has \"under any rational theory it might lead to any relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said.\" United States v. Barile, 286 F.3d 749, 755 (4th Cir. 2002)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011376",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Posner, J."
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 724",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011376"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing legal matters related to a court case. The text is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011377.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "724",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3\n\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 2\n\n(Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 613.04[1] (2d ed. 2001)). To be sure, every time Jane denied making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane's trial testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don't remember making the prior statement, the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the 3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell's right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence.\n\nExtrinsic evidence is disallowed only when the witness admits making the prior inconsistent statement. United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) (\"The principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby impeached and further testimony is not necessary.\") Where the witness admits the 3500 material contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement, the witness has not \"admitted the statement\" within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf. id.\n\nDue to the press of time, Ms. Maxwell's counsel was not able to indicate each disputed prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011377",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "(Weinstein's Federal Evidence § 613.04[1] (2d ed. 2001)). To be sure, every time Jane denied making a statement but agreed the 3500 material reflected the statement, she denied its substance to the jury; the prior statement is therefore provable by extrinsic evidence because Jane's trial testimony—I did not make the prior statement, or I don't remember making the prior statement, the FBI agent made a typo—would lead to a relevant conclusion different from any other relevant conclusion resulting from anything the witness said. See id. And referring Jane to the 3500 material, which was not admitted into evidence, is not sufficient to protect Ms. Maxwell's right under Rule 613 to prove the statement by extrinsic evidence.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Extrinsic evidence is disallowed only when the witness admits making the prior inconsistent statement. United States v. Jones, 578 F.2d 1332, 1340 (10th Cir. 1978) (\"The principle is that where it is sought to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement and the witness admits the prior inconsistent statement, the witness is thereby impeached and further testimony is not necessary.\") Where the witness admits the 3500 material contains the statement, but denies making the statement or remembering making the statement, the witness has not \"admitted the statement\" within the meaning of Rule 613. Cf. id.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Due to the press of time, Ms. Maxwell's counsel was not able to indicate each disputed prior inconsistent statement that was read into the record by the deadline of 10:15 p.m.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011377",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jane",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Jones"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "FBI"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 724",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011377"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of extrinsic evidence under Rule 613 of the Federal Rules of Evidence."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011378.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "724",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 3\nJeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100\nAttorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)\nDOJ-OGR-00011378",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 724 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 15, 2021\nPage 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\nPhone: 303-831-7364\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue\nNew York, NY 10022\nPhone: 212-957-7600\nBobbi C. Sternheim\nLaw Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\n225 Broadway, Suite 715\nNew York, NY 10007\nPhone: 212-243-1100",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Attorneys for Ghislaine Maxwell\ncc: Counsel of record (via email)",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011378",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "724",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011378"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature and contact information for attorneys."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011379.json

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "725",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 725 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2 Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN November 28, 2021 VIA EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan, DOJ-OGR-00011379",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 725 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C Jeffrey S. Pagliuca 150 East 10th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203 PH 303.831.7364 FX 303.832.2628 www.hmflaw.com jpagliuca@hmflaw.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "HADDON MORGAN FOREMAN",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "November 28, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "VIA EMAIL",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011379",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 28, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "725",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011379"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a letter from a law firm to a judge regarding a court case. The document is well-formatted and easy to read."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011380.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "725",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 725 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2 The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 28, 2021 Page 2 Respectfully submitted, Jeffrey S. Pagliuca CC: Counsel of Record DOJ-OGR-00011380",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 725 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan November 28, 2021 Page 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CC: Counsel of Record",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011380",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Counsel of Record",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 28, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "725",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011380"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature redacted."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011381.json

@@ -0,0 +1,89 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "726",
+    "date": "07/13/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 3\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.\n20-CR-330 (AJN)\nORDER\nALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation:\nThe Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to motions that were not previously docketed. See Dkt. No. 698. With one exception, the Court concludes that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect information subject to Fed. R. Evid. 412 and the privacy interests of witnesses, including individuals subject to the Court's pseudonym order, and individuals who were anticipated to be called as witnesses at trial, but were not ultimately called. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court will file unredacted copies of all items under seal.\nThe Court concludes, however, that the proposed redactions to Dkt. No. 725 are not narrowly tailored. The private information of victim-witnesses who are discussed in the letter may be protected by narrow redactions. However, there is no basis to redact the letter's general request to identify the proper scope of cross-examination. Accordingly, the Defendant is ORDERED to confer with the Government and docket proposed revised redactions on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022. The letter at Dkt. No. 725 was filed under temporary seal at Dkt. No. 712. Because the Court concludes that sealing in not justified, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the entry at Dkt. No. 712 from the docket.\n1\nDOJ-OGR-00011381",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ORDER",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, Circuit Judge, sitting by designation: The Court is in receipt of the parties' proposed redactions to motions that were not previously docketed. See Dkt. No. 698. With one exception, the Court concludes that the proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect information subject to Fed. R. Evid. 412 and the privacy interests of witnesses, including individuals subject to the Court's pseudonym order, and individuals who were anticipated to be called as witnesses at trial, but were not ultimately called. See Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). The Court will file unredacted copies of all items under seal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court concludes, however, that the proposed redactions to Dkt. No. 725 are not narrowly tailored. The private information of victim-witnesses who are discussed in the letter may be protected by narrow redactions. However, there is no basis to redact the letter's general request to identify the proper scope of cross-examination. Accordingly, the Defendant is ORDERED to confer with the Government and docket proposed revised redactions on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022. The letter at Dkt. No. 725 was filed under temporary seal at Dkt. No. 712. Because the Court concludes that sealing in not justified, the Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to strike the entry at Dkt. No. 712 from the docket.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011381",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 7/13/22",
+      "position": "margin"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/13/22",
+      "July 15, 2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 726",
+      "Dkt. No. 698",
+      "Dkt. No. 725",
+      "Dkt. No. 712",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It appears to be a formal, typed document with no handwritten text. The document has a stamp indicating it was electronically filed."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011382.json

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "726",
+    "date": "07/13/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 3\nThe Court's Chambers also received an email from Defense counsel inquiring whether to docket three joint letters regarding jury strikes that were previously filed with the Court, but not docketed. Because docketing the letters would not undermine the important interest of protecting juror anonymity and privacy, the parties are ORDERED to docket the three letters on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022.\nFinally, to ensure a complete record, the Court has identified four additional documents that have not previously been docketed nor subject of a sealing request:\n- November 19, 2021 Administrator Feldman's Motion to Quash Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena, with exhibits\n- November 22, 2021 Defendant's Response to Motions to Quash Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena\n- December 6, 2021 Jane's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Call Counsel to Testify\n- December 15, 2021 Jane's Opposition to Defendant's December 13, 2021 Motion to Call Counsel to Testify\nThe parties are ORDERED to confer with each other and counsel for the relevant movants and indicate on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022, whether there are any requests to seal or redact the outstanding documents. Any documents not subject to a sealing request must be docketed on ECF by that same date. Any proposed redactions must be justified by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.\nThis resolves Dkt. No. 698.\nSO ORDERED.\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00011382",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court's Chambers also received an email from Defense counsel inquiring whether to docket three joint letters regarding jury strikes that were previously filed with the Court, but not docketed. Because docketing the letters would not undermine the important interest of protecting juror anonymity and privacy, the parties are ORDERED to docket the three letters on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, to ensure a complete record, the Court has identified four additional documents that have not previously been docketed nor subject of a sealing request:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "- November 19, 2021 Administrator Feldman's Motion to Quash Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena, with exhibits\n- November 22, 2021 Defendant's Response to Motions to Quash Defendant's Rule 17(c)(3) subpoena\n- December 6, 2021 Jane's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Call Counsel to Testify\n- December 15, 2021 Jane's Opposition to Defendant's December 13, 2021 Motion to Call Counsel to Testify",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The parties are ORDERED to confer with each other and counsel for the relevant movants and indicate on or before 12:00 p.m. on Friday, July 15, 2022, whether there are any requests to seal or redact the outstanding documents. Any documents not subject to a sealing request must be docketed on ECF by that same date. Any proposed redactions must be justified by reference to the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This resolves Dkt. No. 698.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011382",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Feldman",
+      "Jane"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Onondaga"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "July 15, 2022",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "November 22, 2021",
+      "December 6, 2021",
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "December 13, 2021",
+      "07/13/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "726",
+      "698",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011382"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011383.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "726",
+    "date": "July 13, 2022",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 3\nDated: July 13, 2022 New York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States Circuit Judge\nSitting by Designation\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00011383",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 726 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: July 13, 2022 New York, New York",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States Circuit Judge\nSitting by Designation",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011383",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Circuit Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "July 13, 2022",
+      "07/13/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "726",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011383"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature from Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document is page 3 of 3."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011384.json

@@ -0,0 +1,97 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 2",
+    "document_number": "727",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 727 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 2 COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com November 14, 2021 BY EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The parties respectfully submit this joint letter in response to the Court's email earlier today regarding prospective jurors that the Court proposes to strike from the list of jurors proceeding to voir dire. I. The Parties' Positions Regarding the Court's List The parties have conferred about the Court's proposed list of strikes. The government has no objection to the Court's proposal to strike all jurors on the list. The defense largely agrees with the Court's proposal, but requests that a limited number of jurors on the list proceed to voir dire so that the Court can inquire further about the nature of any travel or hardship conflict that these jurors have identified. More specifically, the defense agrees that the following jurors should be excused from voir dire: 23, 114, 215, 257, 338, 420, 422, 542, 561 2051282.1 DOJ-OGR-00011384",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 727 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "COHEN & GRESSER LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 +1 212 957 7600 phone www.cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell +1 (212) 957-7600 ceverdell@cohengresser.com",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "November 14, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, NY 10007",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: The parties respectfully submit this joint letter in response to the Court's email earlier today regarding prospective jurors that the Court proposes to strike from the list of jurors proceeding to voir dire.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. The Parties' Positions Regarding the Court's List The parties have conferred about the Court's proposed list of strikes. The government has no objection to the Court's proposal to strike all jurors on the list.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defense largely agrees with the Court's proposal, but requests that a limited number of jurors on the list proceed to voir dire so that the Court can inquire further about the nature of any travel or hardship conflict that these jurors have identified.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "More specifically, the defense agrees that the following jurors should be excused from voir dire: 23, 114, 215, 257, 338, 420, 422, 542, 561",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2051282.1 DOJ-OGR-00011384",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States Courthouse"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "NY",
+      "Foley Square"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 14, 2021",
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 727",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "2051282.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011384"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge regarding a court case. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011385.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "727",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 727 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 2\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 14, 2021\nPage 2\nThe defense proposes that the following jurors should proceed to voir dire so that the Court can inquire further about the travel or hardship reasons that may prevent them from serving as jurors on this case:\n196, 290, 419, 562\nII. Modified Defense Strikes\nThe defense also writes to advise the Court of a small number of prospective jurors that the defense intended to strike, but inadvertently indicated should proceed to voir dire. The defense believes that the following jurors should be stricken and should not proceed to voir dire:\n92, 226, 404\nWe have conferred with the government about these proposed strikes. The government maintains its position that these jurors should proceed to voir dire.\nSincerely,\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600\ncc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)\n2051282.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011385",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 727 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nNovember 14, 2021\nPage 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defense proposes that the following jurors should proceed to voir dire so that the Court can inquire further about the travel or hardship reasons that may prevent them from serving as jurors on this case:\n196, 290, 419, 562",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. Modified Defense Strikes",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defense also writes to advise the Court of a small number of prospective jurors that the defense intended to strike, but inadvertently indicated should proceed to voir dire. The defense believes that the following jurors should be stricken and should not proceed to voir dire:\n92, 226, 404",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "We have conferred with the government about these proposed strikes. The government maintains its position that these jurors should proceed to voir dire.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Sincerely,\n/s/ Christian Everdell\nChristian R. Everdell\nCOHEN & GRESSER LLP\n800 Third Avenue, 21st Floor\nNew York, New York 10022\n(212) 957-7600",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "cc: All Counsel of Record (By ECF)",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2051282.1\nDOJ-OGR-00011385",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Christian Everdell",
+      "Christian R. Everdell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 14, 2021",
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "727",
+      "2051282.1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011385"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to jury selection in a criminal case. It is a typed document with no handwritten notes or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011386.json

@@ -0,0 +1,80 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 15",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 15 U.S Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 7, 2021 BY EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan: The parties respectfully submit this joint letter to provide the Court with the parties' respective positions regarding juror questionnaires completed on November 5, 2021 and November 6, 2021. I. Prospective Jurors Proceeding to Voir Dire The parties agree that the following prospective jurors should proceed to voir dire: Juror # 2 7 8 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30 DOJ-OGR-00011386",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 November 7, 2021",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY EMAIL The Honorable Alison J. Nathan United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 40 Foley Square New York, New York 10007",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Judge Nathan:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The parties respectfully submit this joint letter to provide the Court with the parties' respective positions regarding juror questionnaires completed on November 5, 2021 and November 6, 2021.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Prospective Jurors Proceeding to Voir Dire The parties agree that the following prospective jurors should proceed to voir dire:",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror # 2 7 8 12 13 14 20 21 22 23 26 27 28 29 30",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011386",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 7, 2021",
+      "November 5, 2021",
+      "November 6, 2021",
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 729",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011386"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S Department of Justice to the United States District Court. It is related to the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is stamped with a seal and has a reference number at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011387.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 15 Page 2 32 33 37 43 47 48 49 50 54 55 58 62 63 70 79 82 87 89 93 96 98 108 112 113 114 117 119 120 123 124 125 126 129 131 132 147 149 151 152 153 162 164 DOJ-OGR-00011387",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "32\n33\n37\n43\n47\n48\n49\n50\n54\n55\n58\n62\n63\n70\n79\n82\n87\n89\n93\n96\n98\n108\n112\n113\n114\n117\n119\n120\n123\n124\n125\n126\n129\n131\n132\n147\n149\n151\n152\n153\n162\n164",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011387",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011387"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers on page 2. The document is well-formatted and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011388.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 3 of 15 Page 3 166 167 169 170 172 174 176 181 182 186 188 189 195 196 198 199 200 204 206 207 215 216 220 226 228 235 239 240 241 248 251 257 260 261 263 270 271 273 275 277 279 280 DOJ-OGR-00011388",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 3 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "166\n167\n169\n170\n172\n174\n176\n181\n182\n186\n188\n189\n195\n196\n198\n199\n200\n204\n206\n207\n215\n216\n220\n226\n228\n235\n239\n240\n241\n248\n251\n257\n260\n261\n263\n270\n271\n273\n275\n277\n279\n280",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011388",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011388"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is clean and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011389.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 15 Page 4 282 286 290 292 297 299 304 311 312 313 314 315 326 334 338 340 341 345 347 349 354 363 366 367 372 374 378 379 384 385 387 388 391 394 396 398 403 404 407 409 411 413 DOJ-OGR-00011389",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "282\n286\n290\n292\n297\n299\n304\n311\n312\n313\n314\n315\n326\n334\n338\n340\n341\n345\n347\n349\n354\n363\n366\n367\n372\n374\n378\n379\n384\n385\n387\n388\n391\n394\n396\n398\n403\n404\n407\n409\n411\n413",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011389",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011389"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is clean and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011390.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 5 of 15 Page 5 418 419 420 422 424 425 426 428 429 430 432 433 434 437 439 440 442 444 445 450 451 452 456 457 459 460 461 465 467 475 477 480 481 485 486 487 489 498 501 504 505 506 DOJ-OGR-00011390",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 5 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 5",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "418\n419\n420\n422\n424\n425\n426\n428\n429\n430\n432\n433\n434\n437\n439\n440\n442\n444\n445\n450\n451\n452\n456\n457\n459\n460\n461\n465\n467\n475\n477\n480\n481\n485\n486\n487\n489\n498\n501\n504\n505\n506",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011390",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011390"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers, possibly page numbers or reference numbers."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011391.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 15\nPage 6\n509\n514\n516\n517\n520\n541\n542\n543\n544\n545\n549\n551\n555\n556\n561\n562\n563\n565\n566\nII. Prospective Jurors Excused\nThe parties agree that the following jurors should be excused:\nJuror #\n1\n5\n6\n18\n24\n25\n31\n35\n40\n41\n45\n46\n52\n57\n59\n60\nDOJ-OGR-00011391",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 6",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "509\n514\n516\n517\n520\n541\n542\n543\n544\n545\n549\n551\n555\n556\n561\n562\n563\n565\n566",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. Prospective Jurors Excused",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The parties agree that the following jurors should be excused:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror #\n1\n5\n6\n18\n24\n25\n31\n35\n40\n41\n45\n46\n52\n57\n59\n60",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011391",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011391"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to juror excusal in a criminal case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011392.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 15 Page 7 61 64 65 69 72 75 77 78 80 81 83 84 86 88 95 97 99 100 101 103 104 106 107 110 115 116 118 121 127 128 130 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 142 143 144 146 DOJ-OGR-00011392",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "61\n64\n65\n69\n72\n75\n77\n78\n80\n81\n83\n84\n86\n88\n95\n97\n99\n100\n101\n103\n104\n106\n107\n110\n115\n116\n118\n121\n127\n128\n130\n133\n134\n135\n136\n137\n138\n139\n142\n143\n144\n146",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011392",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011392"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is legible and there are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011393.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 8 of 15 Page 8 148 150 154 155 156 157 158 159 161 163 165 171 173 177 185 187 190 191 192 193 201 202 203 205 208 210 214 218 221 231 232 234 237 242 243 244 245 246 247 249 250 252 DOJ-OGR-00011393",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 8 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "148\n150\n154\n155\n156\n157\n158\n159\n161\n163\n165\n171\n173\n177\n185\n187\n190\n191\n192\n193\n201\n202\n203\n205\n208\n210\n214\n218\n221\n231\n232\n234\n237\n242\n243\n244\n245\n246\n247\n249\n250\n252",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011393",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011393"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is clean and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011394.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 9 of 15 Page 9 253 255 256 259 262 264 265 266 267 268 269 276 281 284 285 287 288 289 291 293 296 300 301 302 303 306 307 309 310 317 318 321 322 323 324 325 327 329 330 332 333 337 DOJ-OGR-00011394",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 9 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "253\n255\n256\n259\n262\n264\n265\n266\n267\n268\n269\n276\n281\n284\n285\n287\n288\n289\n291\n293\n296\n300\n301\n302\n303\n306\n307\n309\n310\n317\n318\n321\n322\n323\n324\n325\n327\n329\n330\n332\n333\n337",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011394",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011394"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is legible and well-formatted."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011395.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 10 of 15 Page 10 348 352 353 355 358 359 360 361 364 365 368 370 371 373 375 380 381 382 383 386 389 390 392 393 395 397 399 400 401 402 408 410 412 414 416 417 423 427 431 436 441 443 DOJ-OGR-00011395",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 10 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "348\n352\n353\n355\n358\n359\n360\n361\n364\n365\n368\n370\n371\n373\n375\n380\n381\n382\n383\n386\n389\n390\n392\n393\n395\n397\n399\n400\n401\n402\n408\n410\n412\n414\n416\n417\n423\n427\n431\n436\n441\n443",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011395",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011395"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers, possibly page or reference numbers. The document is well-formatted and clear."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011396.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "11",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 11 of 15 Page 11 446 447 449 453 455 458 462 463 464 468 469 470 471 472 473 476 478 479 483 490 492 493 495 496 497 500 502 503 507 508 512 513 515 518 519 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 DOJ-OGR-00011396",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 11 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 11",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "446\n447\n449\n453\n455\n458\n462\n463\n464\n468\n469\n470\n471\n472\n473\n476\n478\n479\n483\n490\n492\n493\n495\n496\n497\n500\n502\n503\n507\n508\n512\n513\n515\n518\n519\n522\n523\n524\n525\n526\n527\n528",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011396",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011396"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is clean and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011397.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "12",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 15 Page 12 530 533 534 535 536 537 539 540 546 550 552 554 557 558 559 560 564 III. Defense Objections The following is a list of prospective jurors that the defense but not the Government believes should be excused: Juror # 3 4 9 10 11 15 16 17 19 36 38 39 51 53 56 66 67 DOJ-OGR-00011397",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 12",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "530\n533\n534\n535\n536\n537\n539\n540\n546\n550\n552\n554\n557\n558\n559\n560\n564",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Defense Objections",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The following is a list of prospective jurors that the defense but not the Government believes should be excused:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Juror #\n3\n4\n9\n10\n11\n15\n16\n17\n19\n36\n38\n39\n51\n53\n56\n66\n67",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011397",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011397"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, with a list of prospective jurors and their corresponding numbers."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011398.json

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "13",
+    "document_number": "729",
+    "date": "07/14/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 15 Page 13 68 71 73 74 76 85 90 91 92 94 102 105 109 111 122 140 141 145 160 168 178 179 180 183 184 194 197 209 211 213 217 219 222 223 224 225 227 229 230 233 236 238 DOJ-OGR-00011398",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 729 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 15",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 13",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "68\n71\n73\n74\n76\n85\n90\n91\n92\n94\n102\n105\n109\n111\n122\n140\n141\n145\n160\n168\n178\n179\n180\n183\n184\n194\n197\n209\n211\n213\n217\n219\n222\n223\n224\n225\n227\n229\n230\n233\n236\n238",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011398",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/14/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "729",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011398"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a list of numbers. The document is clean and legible."
+}