more

.eleventy.js

@@ -25,6 +25,122 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
     return dedupeMappings[entityType]?.[entityName] || entityName;
   }
 
+  // Helper function to normalize document types (for grouping)
+  function normalizeDocType(docType) {
+    if (!docType) return null;
+    return String(docType).toLowerCase().trim();
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to format document types for display (title case)
+  function formatDocType(docType) {
+    if (!docType) return 'Unknown';
+    return String(docType)
+      .toLowerCase()
+      .trim()
+      .split(' ')
+      .map(word => word.charAt(0).toUpperCase() + word.slice(1))
+      .join(' ');
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to normalize dates to consistent format
+  function normalizeDate(dateStr) {
+    if (!dateStr) return null;
+
+    const str = String(dateStr).trim();
+
+    // Already in ISO format (YYYY-MM-DD)
+    if (/^\d{4}-\d{2}-\d{2}$/.test(str)) {
+      return str;
+    }
+
+    // Just a year (YYYY)
+    if (/^\d{4}$/.test(str)) {
+      return `${str}-00-00`;
+    }
+
+    // Try to parse various date formats
+    const months = {
+      'jan': '01', 'january': '01',
+      'feb': '02', 'february': '02',
+      'mar': '03', 'march': '03',
+      'apr': '04', 'april': '04',
+      'may': '05',
+      'jun': '06', 'june': '06',
+      'jul': '07', 'july': '07',
+      'aug': '08', 'august': '08',
+      'sep': '09', 'september': '09',
+      'oct': '10', 'october': '10',
+      'nov': '11', 'november': '11',
+      'dec': '12', 'december': '12'
+    };
+
+    // "February 15, 2005" or "Feb 15, 2005"
+    const match1 = str.match(/^(\w+)\s+(\d{1,2}),?\s+(\d{4})$/i);
+    if (match1) {
+      const month = months[match1[1].toLowerCase()];
+      if (month) {
+        const day = match1[2].padStart(2, '0');
+        return `${match1[3]}-${month}-${day}`;
+      }
+    }
+
+    // "15 February 2005" or "15 Feb 2005"
+    const match2 = str.match(/^(\d{1,2})\s+(\w+)\s+(\d{4})$/i);
+    if (match2) {
+      const month = months[match2[2].toLowerCase()];
+      if (month) {
+        const day = match2[1].padStart(2, '0');
+        return `${match2[3]}-${month}-${day}`;
+      }
+    }
+
+    // "2005/02/15" or "2005.02.15"
+    const match3 = str.match(/^(\d{4})[\/\.](\d{1,2})[\/\.](\d{1,2})$/);
+    if (match3) {
+      const month = match3[2].padStart(2, '0');
+      const day = match3[3].padStart(2, '0');
+      return `${match3[1]}-${month}-${day}`;
+    }
+
+    // "02/15/2005" or "02.15.2005" (US format)
+    const match4 = str.match(/^(\d{1,2})[\/\.](\d{1,2})[\/\.](\d{4})$/);
+    if (match4) {
+      const month = match4[1].padStart(2, '0');
+      const day = match4[2].padStart(2, '0');
+      return `${match4[3]}-${month}-${day}`;
+    }
+
+    // Couldn't parse - return original
+    return str;
+  }
+
+  // Helper function to format dates for display
+  function formatDate(normalizedDate) {
+    if (!normalizedDate) return 'Unknown Date';
+
+    // Year only (YYYY-00-00)
+    if (normalizedDate.endsWith('-00-00')) {
+      return normalizedDate.substring(0, 4);
+    }
+
+    // Full date (YYYY-MM-DD)
+    const match = normalizedDate.match(/^(\d{4})-(\d{2})-(\d{2})$/);
+    if (match) {
+      const months = ['', 'January', 'February', 'March', 'April', 'May', 'June',
+                      'July', 'August', 'September', 'October', 'November', 'December'];
+      const year = match[1];
+      const month = parseInt(match[2]);
+      const day = parseInt(match[3]);
+
+      if (month > 0 && month <= 12) {
+        return `${months[month]} ${day}, ${year}`;
+      }
+    }
+
+    // Fallback
+    return normalizedDate;
+  }
+
   // Cache the documents data - only compute once
   let cachedDocuments = null;
 
@@ -143,17 +259,31 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
         people: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.people).map(p => applyDedupe('people', p)))],
         organizations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.organizations).map(o => applyDedupe('organizations', o)))],
         locations: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.locations).map(l => applyDedupe('locations', l)))],
-        dates: Array.from(allEntities.dates),
+        dates: [...new Set(Array.from(allEntities.dates).map(d => {
+          const normalized = normalizeDate(d);
+          return normalized ? formatDate(normalized) : d;
+        }))],
         reference_numbers: Array.from(allEntities.reference_numbers)
       };
 
+      // Normalize document metadata
+      const normalizedMetadata = {
+        ...firstPage.document_metadata,
+        document_type: firstPage.document_metadata?.document_type
+          ? formatDocType(firstPage.document_metadata.document_type)
+          : null,
+        date: firstPage.document_metadata?.date
+          ? formatDate(normalizeDate(firstPage.document_metadata.date))
+          : firstPage.document_metadata?.date
+      };
+
       return {
         unique_id: normalizedDocNum,  // Normalized version for unique URLs
         document_number: rawDocNums.length === 1 ? rawDocNums[0] : normalizedDocNum, // Show original if consistent, else normalized
         raw_document_numbers: rawDocNums, // All variations found
         pages: docPages,
         page_count: docPages.length,
-        document_metadata: firstPage.document_metadata,
+        document_metadata: normalizedMetadata,
         entities: deduplicatedEntities,
         full_text: docPages.map(p => p.full_text).join('\n\n--- PAGE BREAK ---\n\n'),
         folder: folders.join(', '),  // Show all folders if document spans multiple
@@ -223,19 +353,25 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
         });
       }
 
-      // Dates
+      // Dates (normalize for grouping)
       if (doc.entities?.dates) {
         doc.entities.dates.forEach(date => {
-          if (!dates.has(date)) dates.set(date, []);
-          dates.get(date).push(doc);
+          const normalized = normalizeDate(date);
+          if (normalized) {
+            if (!dates.has(normalized)) dates.set(normalized, []);
+            dates.get(normalized).push(doc);
+          }
         });
       }
 
-      // Document types
+      // Document types (normalize for grouping)
       const docType = doc.document_metadata?.document_type;
       if (docType) {
-        if (!documentTypes.has(docType)) documentTypes.set(docType, []);
-        documentTypes.get(docType).push(doc);
+        const normalized = normalizeDocType(docType);
+        if (normalized) {
+          if (!documentTypes.has(normalized)) documentTypes.set(normalized, []);
+          documentTypes.get(normalized).push(doc);
+        }
       }
     });
 
@@ -265,13 +401,17 @@ module.exports = function(eleventyConfig) {
         docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
         count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
       })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
-        name,
+      dates: Array.from(dates.entries()).map(([normalizedDate, docs]) => ({
+        name: formatDate(normalizedDate),  // Display formatted version
+        normalizedDate,  // Keep normalized for sorting
         docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
         count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
-      })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count),
-      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([name, docs]) => ({
-        name,
+      })).sort((a, b) => {
+        // Sort by normalized date (YYYY-MM-DD format sorts correctly)
+        return b.normalizedDate.localeCompare(a.normalizedDate);
+      }),
+      documentTypes: Array.from(documentTypes.entries()).map(([normalizedType, docs]) => ({
+        name: formatDocType(normalizedType),  // Display formatted version
         docs: dedupeDocArray(docs),
         count: dedupeDocArray(docs).length
       })).sort((a, b) => b.count - a.count)

processing_index.json

@@ -10904,7 +10904,173 @@
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011129.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011130.jpg",
     "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011131.jpg",
-    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011132.jpg"
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011132.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011133.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011134.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011135.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011136.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011137.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011138.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011139.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011140.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011141.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011142.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011143.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011144.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011145.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011146.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011147.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011148.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011149.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011150.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011151.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011152.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011153.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011154.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011155.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011156.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011157.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011158.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011159.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011160.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011161.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011162.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011163.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011164.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011165.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011166.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011167.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011168.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011169.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011170.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011171.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011172.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011173.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011174.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011175.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011176.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011177.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011178.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011179.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011180.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011181.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011182.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011183.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011184.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011185.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011186.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011187.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011188.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011189.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011190.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011191.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011192.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011193.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011194.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011195.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011196.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011197.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011198.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011199.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011200.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011201.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011202.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011203.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011204.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011205.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011206.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011207.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011208.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011209.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011210.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011211.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011212.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011213.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011214.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011215.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011216.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011217.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011218.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011219.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011220.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011221.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011222.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011223.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011224.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011225.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011226.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011227.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011228.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011229.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011230.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011231.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011232.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011233.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011234.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011235.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011236.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011237.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011238.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011239.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011240.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011241.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011242.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011243.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011244.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011245.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011246.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011247.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011248.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011249.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011250.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011251.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011252.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011253.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011254.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011255.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011256.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011257.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011258.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011259.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011260.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011261.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011262.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011263.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011264.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011265.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011266.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011267.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011268.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011269.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011270.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011271.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011272.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011273.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011274.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011275.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011276.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011277.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011278.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011279.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011280.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011281.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011282.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011283.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011284.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011285.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011286.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011287.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011288.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011289.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011290.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011291.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011292.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011293.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011294.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011295.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011296.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011297.jpg",
+    "IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011299.jpg"
   ],
   "last_updated": "/Users/nickp/code/files"
 }

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011133.json

@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "691",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case. The Court exercises a \"gatekeeper function\" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993)). But Rule 702 ultimately sets a \"liberal\" and \"permissive\" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with \"the exactness of hard science methodologies.\" E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)). Additionally, the procedure for disclosing expert witnesses is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. That rule states that when the Government makes a request, the Defense \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rule[ ] 702. . . . This summary must describe the witness's",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "(a) the expert's scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court exercises a \"gatekeeper function\" in assessing the admissibility of expert testimony. Restivo v. Hessemann, 846 F.3d 547, 575 (2d Cir. 2017). To determine whether an expert's method is reliable, the Court considers the non-exhaustive list provided by the Supreme Court in Daubert, including whether the expert's method has been tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review, the rate of error, standards controlling the method's operation, and whether the method is accepted by the expert community. United States v. Kidd, 385 F. Supp. 3d 259, 263 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (citing Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593-94 (1993)).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "But Rule 702 ultimately sets a \"liberal\" and \"permissive\" standard of admissibility. Nimely v. City of New York, 414 F.3d 381, 395-96 (2d Cir. 2005). In particular, not every expert admissible under Daubert need rely on a method that conforms with \"the exactness of hard science methodologies.\" E.E.O.C. v. Bloomberg L.P., No. 07-CV-8383 (LAP), 2010 WL 3466370, at *13-14 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2010) (quoting United States v. Simmons, 470 F.3d 1115, 1123 (5th Cir. 2006)).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Additionally, the procedure for disclosing expert witnesses is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. That rule states that when the Government makes a request, the Defense \"must . . . give to the government a written summary of any testimony that the defendant intends to use under Rule[ ] 702. . . . This summary must describe the witness's",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21",
+      "Aug. 31, 2010"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "691",
+      "07-CV-8383 (LAP)",
+      "2010 WL 3466370"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to expert testimony and the admissibility of evidence under Rule 702 and Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011137.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "691",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 7\n\nSecond, even if Gershman's testimony was relevant, Rule 403 prejudice would substantially outweigh for the reasons given at the November 1 conference. Id. at 21-24. Gershman's testimony would be likely to confuse the jury by suggesting that the Government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to guilt, it would conflict with the Court's anticipated jury instruction that the Government is not on trial, it would substantially delay the trial, and it would, at most, be cumulative of the Defense's arguments that there is inadequate evidence on which to find Ms. Maxwell guilty. Indeed, placing an expert imprimatur on these arguments would only enhance the Rule 403 prejudice.\n\nThird, apart from Rule 401 and 403, the Defense's disclosure of Gershman does not satisfy Rule 16. The Defense has listed only the general topics on which Gershman will testify, like \"investigation,\" \"media contact,\" and \"neutrality.\" Notice at 12. It does not mention Gershman's actual opinions on these topics or the bases for those opinions. Nor does the Defense's response brief add any detail about the content of Gershman's opinions. Def. Br. at 18. Indeed, the Defense's briefing on this issue mentions very little of Gershman's anticipated testimony. Therefore, even if Rules 401 and 403 were satisfied, the Court would exclude Gershman's testimony because the Defense has not yet satisfied Rule 16.\n\nIII. Conclusion\n\nThe Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Gershman's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Gershman as an expert witness.\n\n6\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011137",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, even if Gershman's testimony was relevant, Rule 403 prejudice would substantially outweigh for the reasons given at the November 1 conference. Id. at 21-24. Gershman's testimony would be likely to confuse the jury by suggesting that the Government's choices of investigative techniques are relevant to guilt, it would conflict with the Court's anticipated jury instruction that the Government is not on trial, it would substantially delay the trial, and it would, at most, be cumulative of the Defense's arguments that there is inadequate evidence on which to find Ms. Maxwell guilty. Indeed, placing an expert imprimatur on these arguments would only enhance the Rule 403 prejudice.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Third, apart from Rule 401 and 403, the Defense's disclosure of Gershman does not satisfy Rule 16. The Defense has listed only the general topics on which Gershman will testify, like \"investigation,\" \"media contact,\" and \"neutrality.\" Notice at 12. It does not mention Gershman's actual opinions on these topics or the bases for those opinions. Nor does the Defense's response brief add any detail about the content of Gershman's opinions. Def. Br. at 18. Indeed, the Defense's briefing on this issue mentions very little of Gershman's anticipated testimony. Therefore, even if Rules 401 and 403 were satisfied, the Court would exclude Gershman's testimony because the Defense has not yet satisfied Rule 16.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Conclusion",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Gershman's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Gershman as an expert witness.",
+      "position": "main body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011137",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Gershman",
+      "Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Defense",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 1",
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 691",
+      "Rule 403",
+      "Rule 401",
+      "Rule 16",
+      "Rule 403",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011137"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and easy to read. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011138.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "691",
+    "date": "November 22, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 7\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00011138",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 691 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011138",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 22, 2021",
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "691",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011138"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court order signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan. The document is in good condition with clear text and a legible signature."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011139.json

@@ -0,0 +1,105 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "Memorandum Opinion & Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 17\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUnited States of America,\n\n-v-\n\nGhislain Maxwell,\n\nDefendant.\n\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\n\nThe Defense on November 1, 2021, noticed eight expert witnesses. Def. Br., Ex. 1 (\"Notice\"). Two of those experts, Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, are expected to offer opinions that rebut opinions of the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio. The Government on November 8, 2021, filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Dkt. No. 424. The Court has already addressed that motion.\n\nOn November 15, 2021, the Government moved to fully or partially preclude the testimony of the remaining six experts. The Defense filed a response on November 19, 2021.\n\nThe Court addresses the motion to preclude Dr. Hall in this separate opinion. It will address the other five experts in public rulings.\n\nI. Legal standard\n\nFederal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states:\n\nA witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:\n\n1\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011139",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 1 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislain Maxwell, Defendant.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Defense on November 1, 2021, noticed eight expert witnesses. Def. Br., Ex. 1 (\"Notice\"). Two of those experts, Dr. Park Dietz and Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, are expected to offer opinions that rebut opinions of the Government's expert witness, Dr. Lisa Rocchio. The Government on November 8, 2021, filed a motion to partially preclude the testimony of Dr. Dietz and Dr. Loftus. Dkt. No. 424. The Court has already addressed that motion.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On November 15, 2021, the Government moved to fully or partially preclude the testimony of the remaining six experts. The Defense filed a response on November 19, 2021.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court addresses the motion to preclude Dr. Hall in this separate opinion. It will address the other five experts in public rulings.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Legal standard",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Federal Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony. That rule states:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 11/22/21",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330 (AJN) MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER",
+      "position": "margin"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislain Maxwell",
+      "Dr. Park Dietz",
+      "Dr. Elizabeth Loftus",
+      "Dr. Lisa Rocchio",
+      "Dr. Hall"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 1, 2021",
+      "November 8, 2021",
+      "November 15, 2021",
+      "November 19, 2021",
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 692",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
+      "Dkt. No. 424",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011139"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating electronic filing. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011142.json

@@ -0,0 +1,68 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 17\nDef. Br. at 1, 5-6. But one aspect of the Rule 702 and Daubert inquiry is \"fit,\" which asks \"whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.\" Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant question of fact without \"usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it.\" Id. (quoting United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court finds that at least some of the Government's arguments that go to fit are ripe for preliminary resolution now. Other aspects of the Government's motion can be resolved only with additional information and the context of trial.\nA. The Court will preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall\nThe Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained                                                                                                                                                                  The Defense anticipates that Dr. Hall will testify as to approximately four opinions. First, \"[h]e will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report.\" Notice at 12. Second, he will testify on \"the bases for those opinions[ ] and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions.\" Id. Third, \"[h]e will testify about the facts and circumstances surrounding the evaluation\" and \"disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4].\" Id. And fourth, he will testify to \"the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse.\" Id.\n4\nDOJ-OGR-00011142",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 4 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Def. Br. at 1, 5-6. But one aspect of the Rule 702 and Daubert inquiry is \"fit,\" which asks \"whether expert testimony proffered in the case is sufficiently tied to the facts of the case that it will aid the jury in resolving a factual dispute.\" Alto v. Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc., No. 1:19-CV-09758 (GHW), 2021 WL 4803582, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 13, 2021) (quoting Daubert, 509 U.S. at 591). Fit is satisfied if the expert's opinion would assist the jury's decision on a relevant question of fact without \"usurp[ing] either the role of the trial judge in instructing the jury as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it.\" Id. (quoting United States v. Duncan, 42 F.3d 97, 101 (2d Cir. 1994)). The Court finds that at least some of the Government's arguments that go to fit are ripe for preliminary resolution now. Other aspects of the Government's motion can be resolved only with additional information and the context of trial.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A. The Court will preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Government moves to preclude the expert testimony of Dr. Ryan Hall. Dr. Hall was retained                                                                                                                                                                  The Defense anticipates that Dr. Hall will testify as to approximately four opinions. First, \"[h]e will offer the opinions and diagnoses contained in his report.\" Notice at 12. Second, he will testify on \"the bases for those opinions[ ] and the significance of the diagnoses and opinions.\" Id. Third, \"[h]e will testify about the facts and circumstances surrounding the evaluation\" and \"disclosures made [Alleged Victim 4].\" Id. And fourth, he will testify to \"the fact that [Alleged Victim 4] did not identify Ms. Maxwell as a perpetrator of any abuse.\" Id.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011142",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Ryan Hall",
+      "Alleged Victim 4",
+      "Ms. Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Sun Pharm. Indus., Inc."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21",
+      "Oct. 13, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 692",
+      "1:19-CV-09758 (GHW)",
+      "2021 WL 4803582",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011142"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with some redacted text. The redactions are likely related to sensitive information about the case or individuals involved."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011143.json

@@ -0,0 +1,85 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 17\n\nThe Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's training and experience as a psychiatrist and so are expert opinions subject to Rule 702. The latter two opinions are not expert opinions but instead testimony of fact that may or may not be admissible under other rules of evidence.\n\nThe Court will address the expert opinions first. The Government argues that Dr. Hall's testimony on psychological diagnoses is irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403. The Second Circuit has set out controlling case law to guide the Court's decision:\n\nEvidence of a witness's psychological history may be admissible when it goes to her credibility. In assessing the probative value of such evidence, the court should consider such factors as the nature of the psychological problem, the temporal recency or remoteness of the history, and whether the witness suffered from the problem at the time of the events to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.\n\nUnited States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021); United States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006).\n\nEven if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exclude the evidence if it is substantially prejudicial under Rule 403. Sasso, 59 F.3d at 347-48.\n\nDr. Hall's report lists the following\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n5\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011143",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 5 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Government argues, and the Court agrees, that the first two opinions based on Dr. Hall's training and experience as a psychiatrist and so are expert opinions subject to Rule 702. The latter two opinions are not expert opinions but instead testimony of fact that may or may not be admissible under other rules of evidence.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court will address the expert opinions first. The Government argues that Dr. Hall's testimony on psychological diagnoses is irrelevant and prejudicial under Rules 401 and 403. The Second Circuit has set out controlling case law to guide the Court's decision:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Evidence of a witness's psychological history may be admissible when it goes to her credibility. In assessing the probative value of such evidence, the court should consider such factors as the nature of the psychological problem, the temporal recency or remoteness of the history, and whether the witness suffered from the problem at the time of the events to which she is to testify, so that it may have affected her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States v. Sasso, 59 F.3d 341, 347-48 (2d Cir. 1995) (cleaned up); see also United States v. Hamlett, No. 19-3069, 2021 WL 5105861, at *2 (2d Cir. Nov. 3, 2021); United States v. Vitale, 459 F.3d 190, 196 (2d Cir. 2006).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Even if psychological history is probative according to these factors, the Court still retains discretion to exclude the evidence if it is substantially prejudicial under Rule 403. Sasso, 59 F.3d at 347-48.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dr. Hall's report lists the following",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011143",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21",
+      "1995",
+      "Nov. 3, 2021",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "692",
+      "59 F.3d 341",
+      "19-3069",
+      "2021 WL 5105861",
+      "459 F.3d 190",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011143"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with some redacted content."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011144.json

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 17\n\nThe Court will preclude Dr. Hall's testimony on these psychological diagnoses.\n\nApplying the considerations in Sasso, the diagnoses have little probative value. First, the report is now over 12 years old. Courts in this circuit regularly find that diagnoses more than 10 years old lack probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) (“A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be irrelevant.”). The diagnoses are therefore too remote to bear on Alleged Victim 4's credibility as a witness at trial.\n\nSecond, the nature of the conditions and their effect on memory or perception at the time of the events in question do not favor admission. Dr. Hall's report does not delineate clearly which conditions existed at the time of Epstein's abuse, but it appears that at least □\n\nBut at no point in his report does Dr. Hall suggest that these conditions—or any other diagnosed conditions—may have affected Alleged Victim 4's perception of events or her recollection of those events. Like in Sasso, “there was no indication that [the witness] was delusional or paranoid, or had any difficulties in memory or perception.” 59 F.3d at 348.\n\nIn its response, the Defense homes in first on □\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011144",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 6 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court will preclude Dr. Hall's testimony on these psychological diagnoses.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Applying the considerations in Sasso, the diagnoses have little probative value. First, the report is now over 12 years old. Courts in this circuit regularly find that diagnoses more than 10 years old lack probative value. E.g., United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1179 (2d Cir. 1984) (finding that more than 10 years is too remote); United States v. Glover, 588 F.2d 876, 878 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (12 years too remote); United States v. Dupree, 833 F. Supp. 2d 255, 264 (E.D.N.Y. 2011), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 706 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2013) (13 years too remote); United States v. Paredes, No. 99-CR-290 (PKL), 2001 WL 1478810, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2001) (“A psychological condition from ten years earlier, however, is likely to be irrelevant.”). The diagnoses are therefore too remote to bear on Alleged Victim 4's credibility as a witness at trial.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Second, the nature of the conditions and their effect on memory or perception at the time of the events in question do not favor admission. Dr. Hall's report does not delineate clearly which conditions existed at the time of Epstein's abuse, but it appears that at least □",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "But at no point in his report does Dr. Hall suggest that these conditions—or any other diagnosed conditions—may have affected Alleged Victim 4's perception of events or her recollection of those events. Like in Sasso, “there was no indication that [the witness] was delusional or paranoid, or had any difficulties in memory or perception.” 59 F.3d at 348.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In its response, the Defense homes in first on □",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011144",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall",
+      "Epstein",
+      "Alleged Victim 4"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D.N.Y.",
+      "S.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21",
+      "Nov. 20, 2001"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 692",
+      "99-CR-290 (PKL)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011144"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, indicated by □."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011145.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 17 But none of these traits affect memory or recall, which is the primary purpose for admitting evidence of mental conditions identified in Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348. The Defense also emphasizes the diagnosis for But based on the current record, Dr. Hall's description falls short of demonstrating that this \"affect[s] her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.\" Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348); see United States v. Lopez, 611 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir. 1979) (\"[M]any psychiatric problems . . . which a witness may have had are without any relevancy to the witness' credibility, concerned as it is with whether the witness' mental impairment is related to his capacity to observe the event at the time of its occurrence, to communicate his observations accurately and truthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime.\") (cleaned up). 7 DOJ-OGR-00011145",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 7 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "But none of these traits affect memory or recall, which is the primary purpose for admitting evidence of mental conditions identified in Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Defense also emphasizes the diagnosis for",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "But based on the current record, Dr. Hall's description falls short of demonstrating that this \"affect[s] her ability to perceive or to recall events or to testify accurately.\" Vitale, 459 F.3d at 196 (quoting Sasso, 59 F.3d at 348); see United States v. Lopez, 611 F.2d 44, 45 (4th Cir. 1979) (\"[M]any psychiatric problems . . . which a witness may have had are without any relevancy to the witness' credibility, concerned as it is with whether the witness' mental impairment is related to his capacity to observe the event at the time of its occurrence, to communicate his observations accurately and truthfully at trial, or to maintain a clear recollection in the meantime.\") (cleaned up).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011145",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "692",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011145"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, likely for sensitive or personal information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011146.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 17 The Defense also argues that Dr. Hall diagnosed Alleged Victim 4 with [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] In a similar line of cases, courts in this circuit have held that expert diagnoses of depression are not probative of credibility. E.g., Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United 8 DOJ-OGR-00011146",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 8 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Defense also argues that Dr. Hall diagnosed Alleged Victim 4 with",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "[REDACTED] (Repeated 14 times)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In a similar line of cases, courts in this circuit have held that expert diagnoses of depression are not probative of credibility. E.g., Sasso, 49 F.3d at 348 (finding that a diagnosis of depression lacked probative value); United",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "8",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011146",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "692",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011146"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, indicated by black bars, likely to protect sensitive information. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011147.json

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 9 of 17\n\nStates v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's \"ability to accurately perceive or recall\" relevant events); see also United States v. Cooper, No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder).\n\nLast, the Defense points to the diagnosis for [REDACTED]. But, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must \"bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recollect and report his perceptions\").\n\nIn assessing the relevance of each of these diagnoses, the Court also takes account of Dr. Hall's conclusion that despite her several conditions, Alleged Victim 4 has no \"psychotic believes [sic], hallucinations or delusions.\" Report at 92; see also id. at 80 (\"she reports no period of . . . hallucinations\"). Further, Dr. Hall several times commented that Alleged Victim 4's memory was very accurate. E.g., id. at 85 (\"No . . . alterations in memory, or changes in orientation or level of attention.\"); 92 (\"Her memory was impeccable and at multiple times during the evaluation she pointed out to the examiner questions he did or didn't ask. She reported her memory is 'perfect' and that she will remember every detail of the room in which the evaluation was done.\" (emphases in original)). On review, the Court cannot identify any point in the report at which Dr. Hall doubts Alleged Victim 4's account of events. Instead, he appears to summarize and accept her story of sexual conduct with Epstein. Id. at 100-01. In short, none of\n\n9\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011147",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 9 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "States v. Giovinco, No. 18-CR-14 (JSR), 2020 WL 832920, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2020) (finding that depression did not impact the witness's \"ability to accurately perceive or recall\" relevant events); see also United States v. Cooper, No. 15-CR-152 (RMC), 2017 WL 11496709, at *1 (D.D.C. Jan. 27, 2017) (excluding diagnosis of major depressive disorder).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Last, the Defense points to the diagnosis for [REDACTED].",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "But, again, this is not a basis for impeaching Alleged Victim 4's ability to testify truthfully under Sasso. 59 F.3d at 348; see also Hernandez v. Kelly, No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB, 2011 WL 2117611, at *5 (E.D.N.Y. May 27, 2011) (explaining that a condition must \"bear[ ] on [a witness's] ability to rationally perceive events at the time and to accurately recollect and report his perceptions\").",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "In assessing the relevance of each of these diagnoses, the Court also takes account of Dr. Hall's conclusion that despite her several conditions, Alleged Victim 4 has no \"psychotic believes [sic], hallucinations or delusions.\" Report at 92; see also id. at 80 (\"she reports no period of . . . hallucinations\"). Further, Dr. Hall several times commented that Alleged Victim 4's memory was very accurate. E.g., id. at 85 (\"No . . . alterations in memory, or changes in orientation or level of attention.\"); 92 (\"Her memory was impeccable and at multiple times during the evaluation she pointed out to the examiner questions he did or didn't ask. She reported her memory is 'perfect' and that she will remember every detail of the room in which the evaluation was done.\" (emphases in original)). On review, the Court cannot identify any point in the report at which Dr. Hall doubts Alleged Victim 4's account of events. Instead, he appears to summarize and accept her story of sexual conduct with Epstein. Id. at 100-01. In short, none of",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011147",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Giovinco",
+      "Cooper",
+      "Hernandez",
+      "Kelly",
+      "Dr. Hall",
+      "Alleged Victim 4",
+      "Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Court",
+      "Defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "S.D.N.Y.",
+      "D.D.C.",
+      "E.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "Feb. 20, 2020",
+      "Jan. 27, 2017",
+      "May 27, 2011",
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 692",
+      "No. 18-CR-14 (JSR)",
+      "No. 15-CR-152 (RMC)",
+      "No. 09 CV 1576 TLM LB",
+      "59 F.3d",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011147"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. There are redactions in the text, indicating sensitive information has been removed."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011153.json

@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "15",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 17\nor emotional condition, her statements made to Dr. Hall in about events that took place years earlier cannot be said to be “then-existing.” Id. The Defense also says Alleged Victim 4's statements were “made for medical diagnosis or treatment.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court finds that this may be a permissible basis for admitting some of Alleged Victim 4's statements, though they must be “made for . . . medical diagnosis or treatment,” must “describe[ ] medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause,” and must otherwise satisfy Rules 401 and 403. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).1 But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court cannot make a definitive ruling.\nThe Defense does not mention Alleged Victim 4's cited by Dr. Hall in his report. The Court concludes that Alleged Victim 4's are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Dr. Hall's report is not clear on the details of Alleged Victim 4's \nThese incidents, however, are now all over 10 years old, none appear to require proving “a dishonest act or false statement,” and, for , admitting the evidence is not necessary to fairly determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 609 (a), (b), (d).\n1 The Defense also argues that Alleged Victim 4's statements would be “admissible for their effect on Dr. Hall in forming his opinion.” Def. Br. at 15. But, like Rule 703, this justification is a relevant basis for admission only if the validity of Dr. Hall's diagnoses is put in question.\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00011153",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 15 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "or emotional condition, her statements made to Dr. Hall in about events that took place years earlier cannot be said to be “then-existing.” Id. The Defense also says Alleged Victim 4's statements were “made for medical diagnosis or treatment.” Fed. R. Evid. 803(4). The Court finds that this may be a permissible basis for admitting some of Alleged Victim 4's statements, though they must be “made for . . . medical diagnosis or treatment,” must “describe[ ] medical history; past or present symptoms or sensations; their inception; or their general cause,” and must otherwise satisfy Rules 401 and 403. Fed. R. Evid. 803(4)(A), (B); see In re Agent Orange Prod. Liab. Litig., 611 F. Supp. 1223, 1245-46 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd sub nom., 818 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1987) (Weinstein, C.J.).1 But without additional detail from the Defense on which portions of Dr. Hall's testimony it would seek to admit under this exception, the Court cannot make a definitive ruling.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Defense does not mention Alleged Victim 4's cited by Dr. Hall in his report. The Court concludes that Alleged Victim 4's are inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Dr. Hall's report is not clear on the details of Alleged Victim 4's",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "These incidents, however, are now all over 10 years old, none appear to require proving “a dishonest act or false statement,” and, for , admitting the evidence is not necessary to fairly determine the guilt or innocence of Ms. Maxwell. Fed. R. Evid. 609 (a), (b), (d).",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 The Defense also argues that Alleged Victim 4's statements would be “admissible for their effect on Dr. Hall in forming his opinion.” Def. Br. at 15. But, like Rule 703, this justification is a relevant basis for admission only if the validity of Dr. Hall's diagnoses is put in question.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "15",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011153",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall",
+      "Alleged Victim 4",
+      "Ms. Maxwell",
+      "Weinstein, C.J."
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [
+      "E.D.N.Y."
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 692",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011153"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The redactions are likely related to sensitive information about the case or individuals involved."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011155.json

@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "17",
+    "document_number": "692",
+    "date": "11/22/21",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 17 of 17\n\nIII. Conclusion\n\nThe Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Dr. Hall's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Dr. Hall as an expert witness.\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\nDated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York\n\nALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge\n\n17\nDOJ-OGR-00011155",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 692 Filed 11/22/21 Page 17 of 17",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Conclusion",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court therefore grants the Government's motion to preclude Dr. Hall's expert testimony. Because this is a preliminary pre-trial ruling, it is possible that facts and circumstances at trial would alter the Court's analysis. In that event, the Defense must re-raise its request to admit Dr. Hall as an expert witness.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: November 22, 2021\nNew York, New York",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN\nUnited States District Judge",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "17",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011155",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Dr. Hall",
+      "ALISON J. NATHAN"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Defense"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 22, 2021",
+      "11/22/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "692",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011155"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court ruling with a signature from the judge. The text is mostly printed, with a handwritten signature. There are no visible stamps or redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011156.json

@@ -0,0 +1,79 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "693",
+    "date": "11/30/21",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 693 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 2\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\nUnited States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.\nALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:\nThe Court is in receipt of the parties' letters regarding the issue of potential cross-examination that might elicit identifying information in violation of this Court's order. See Dkt. No. 519. The Government is hereby ORDERED to provide to the Defense the information it believes falls within the categories of specifically identifying information for the current testifying witness no later than 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, December 1, 2021. The Defense is ORDERED to alert the Government of any issues concerning the current testifying witness by the same time—7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, December 1, 2021. The Defense shall remain cognizant not only of its duty to avoid revealing the names of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, but also any specifically identifying information of the protected witnesses. See Transcript, at 10-11 (Nov. 1, 2021). The parties shall then meet and confer on any disagreements. If the parties cannot reach a resolution, they may raise any issues with the Court when the parties are scheduled to appear at 8:45 a.m.\nSO ORDERED.\nDOJ-OGR-00011156",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 693 Filed 11/30/21 Page 1 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America,\n-v-\nGhislaine Maxwell,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court is in receipt of the parties' letters regarding the issue of potential cross-examination that might elicit identifying information in violation of this Court's order. See Dkt. No. 519. The Government is hereby ORDERED to provide to the Defense the information it believes falls within the categories of specifically identifying information for the current testifying witness no later than 7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, December 1, 2021. The Defense is ORDERED to alert the Government of any issues concerning the current testifying witness by the same time—7:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, December 1, 2021. The Defense shall remain cognizant not only of its duty to avoid revealing the names of witnesses testifying under pseudonyms, but also any specifically identifying information of the protected witnesses. See Transcript, at 10-11 (Nov. 1, 2021). The parties shall then meet and confer on any disagreements. If the parties cannot reach a resolution, they may raise any issues with the Court when the parties are scheduled to appear at 8:45 a.m.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: _____ DATE FILED: 11/30/21",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011156",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/30/21",
+      "December 1, 2021",
+      "Nov. 1, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 693",
+      "Dkt. No. 519",
+      "20-CR-330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011156"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 and official document, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011157.json

@@ -0,0 +1,59 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "693",
+    "date": "November 30, 2021",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 693 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 2 Dated: November 30, 2021 New York, New York Alison J. Nathan United States District Judge DOJ-OGR-00011157",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 693 Filed 11/30/21 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: November 30, 2021 New York, New York",
+      "position": "left"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011157",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 30, 2021",
+      "11/30/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "693",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011157"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature from a United States District Judge. The document is dated November 30, 2021, and is related to case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011158.json

@@ -0,0 +1,103 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "694",
+    "date": "12/15/21",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 694 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant. ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge: The Court is in receipt of the Government's motion to preclude certain testimony of defense witnesses, dated December 15, 2021. The Defense is ORDERED to submit a response as follows: A response to the motion with respect to Dr. Loftus by today, December 15, 2021, at 7:45 p.m. A response to the motion with respect to Alexander Hamilton by tomorrow, December 16, 2021, at 7:00 a.m. December 16, 2021, at 7:00 a.m. A response to the motion with respect to the other anticipated witnesses by tomorrow, December 16, 2021, at 5:00 p.m. SO ORDERED. Dated: December 15, 2021 New York, New York ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge 1 DOJ-OGR-00011158",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 694 Filed 12/15/21 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America, -v- Ghislaine Maxwell, Defendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN, District Judge:",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court is in receipt of the Government's motion to preclude certain testimony of defense witnesses, dated December 15, 2021. The Defense is ORDERED to submit a response as follows:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A response to the motion with respect to Dr. Loftus by today, December 15, 2021, at 7:45 p.m.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A response to the motion with respect to Alexander Hamilton by tomorrow, December 16, 2021, at 7:00 a.m.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "A response to the motion with respect to the other anticipated witnesses by tomorrow, December 16, 2021, at 5:00 p.m.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SO ORDERED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: December 15, 2021 New York, New York",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "ALISON J. NATHAN United States District Judge",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "USDC SDNY DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC #: DATE FILED: 12/15/21",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 DOJ-OGR-00011158",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "ALISON J. NATHAN",
+      "Dr. Loftus",
+      "Alexander Hamilton"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 15, 2021",
+      "December 16, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "694",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011158"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court order from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan and has a stamp indicating it was electronically filed on December 15, 2021."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011159.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "696",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Judgment in a Criminal Case",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 8\nAO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case (form modified within District on Sept. 30, 2019) Sheet 1\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of New York\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE\nCase Number: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)\nUSM Number: 02879-509\nBOBBI C. STERNHEIM Defendant's Attorney\nTHE DEFENDANT:\npleaded guilty to count(s)\npleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court.\nwas found guilty on count(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (judgment not entered on 1 & 5 as multiplicitous, Dkt. No. 657) after a plea of not guilty.\nThe defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offenses:\nTitle & Section Nature of Offense Offense Ended Count\n18 USC 371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY 7/30/2004 3\nThe defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 8 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.\nThe defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) 2\nCount(s) 7, 8 and underlying indictments is are dismissed on the motion of the United States.\nIt is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.\nDate of Imposition of Judgment 6/29/2022\nSignature of Judge Alison J. Nathan\nALISON J. NATHAN, US Circuit Judge sitting by designation\nName and Title of Judge 6/29/2022\nDate",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 1 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GHISLAINE MAXWELL JUDGMENT IN A CRIMINAL CASE",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case Number: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)\nUSM Number: 02879-509\nBOBBI C. STERNHEIM Defendant's Attorney",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "THE DEFENDANT:\npleaded guilty to count(s)\npleaded nolo contendere to count(s) which was accepted by the court.\nwas found guilty on count(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 (judgment not entered on 1 & 5 as multiplicitous, Dkt. No. 657) after a plea of not guilty.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant is adjudicated guilty of these offenses:\nTitle & Section Nature of Offense Offense Ended Count\n18 USC 371.F CONSPIRACY TO TRANSPORT MINORS WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY 7/30/2004 3",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant is sentenced as provided in pages 2 through 8 of this judgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant has been found not guilty on count(s) 2\nCount(s) 7, 8 and underlying indictments is are dismissed on the motion of the United States.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid. If ordered to pay restitution, the defendant must notify the court and United States attorney of material changes in economic circumstances.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "position": "signature"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Date of Imposition of Judgment 6/29/2022\nSignature of Judge\nALISON J. NATHAN, US Circuit Judge sitting by designation\nName and Title of Judge 6/29/2022\nDate",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL",
+      "BOBBI C. STERNHEIM",
+      "ALISON J. NATHAN"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT",
+      "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/29/22",
+      "7/30/2004",
+      "6/29/2022"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "02879-509",
+      "Dkt. No. 657"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a Judgment in a Criminal Case from the United States District Court, Southern District of New York. It contains printed and handwritten text, with the judge's signature. The document is page 1 of 8."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011160.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2 of 8",
+    "document_number": "696",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Judgment in a Criminal Case",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 8\nAO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case\nSheet 1A\nJudgment—Page 2 of 8\nDEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nCASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)\nADDITIONAL COUNTS OF CONVICTION\nTitle & Section Nature of Offense Offense Ended Count\n18 USC 2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY 12/31/1997 4\n18 USC 1591.F SEX TRAFFICKING OF AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN 7/30/2004 6\nDOJ-OGR-00011160",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 2 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case Sheet 1A",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Judgment—Page 2 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL CASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ADDITIONAL COUNTS OF CONVICTION",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Title & Section Nature of Offense Offense Ended Count",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18 USC 2423.F TRANSPORTATION OF A MINOR WITH INTENT TO ENGAGE IN CRIMINAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY 12/31/1997 4",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18 USC 1591.F SEX TRAFFICKING OF AN INDIVIDUAL UNDER THE AGE OF EIGHTEEN 7/30/2004 6",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011160",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/29/22",
+      "12/31/1997",
+      "7/30/2004"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "696",
+      "S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011160"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a judgment in a criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011161.json

@@ -0,0 +1,112 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "696",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Judgment in Criminal Case",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 8\nAO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in Criminal Case\nSheet 2 — Imprisonment\nJudgment — Page 3 of 8\nDEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nCASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)\nIMPRISONMENT\nThe defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of:\nThe Defendant is sentenced to a term of 240 Months.\nCount 3 a sentence of 60 Months. Count 4 a sentence of 120 Months. Count 6 a sentence of 240 Months. All Counts to run concurrently.\nDefendant was notified of her right to Appeal.\nThe court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:\nDefendant to be considered for designation to FCI Danbury.\nDefendant to be considered for enrollment in FIT program.\nThe defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.\nThe defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:\nat a.m. p.m. on .\nas notified by the United States Marshal.\nThe defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:\nbefore 2 p.m. on .\nas notified by the United States Marshal.\nas notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.\nRETURN\nI have executed this judgment as follows:\nDefendant delivered on to ,\nwith a certified copy of this judgment.\nUNITED STATES MARSHAL\nBy DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL\nDOJ-OGR-00011161",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 3 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in Criminal Case\nSheet 2 — Imprisonment",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Judgment — Page 3 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nCASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IMPRISONMENT",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant is hereby committed to the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total term of:\nThe Defendant is sentenced to a term of 240 Months.\nCount 3 a sentence of 60 Months. Count 4 a sentence of 120 Months. Count 6 a sentence of 240 Months. All Counts to run concurrently.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Defendant was notified of her right to Appeal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:\nDefendant to be considered for designation to FCI Danbury.\nDefendant to be considered for enrollment in FIT program.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant is remanded to the custody of the United States Marshal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant shall surrender to the United States Marshal for this district:\nat a.m. p.m. on .\nas notified by the United States Marshal.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant shall surrender for service of sentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons:\nbefore 2 p.m. on .\nas notified by the United States Marshal.\nas notified by the Probation or Pretrial Services Office.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RETURN",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I have executed this judgment as follows:\nDefendant delivered on to ,\nwith a certified copy of this judgment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES MARSHAL\nBy DEPUTY UNITED STATES MARSHAL",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011161",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Federal Bureau of Prisons",
+      "United States Marshal",
+      "Bureau of Prisons",
+      "Probation or Pretrial Services Office"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "FCI Danbury"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/29/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 696",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011161"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a judgment in a criminal case, specifically a sentencing document for Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is printed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. It is page 3 of 8."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011162.json

@@ -0,0 +1,77 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "696",
+    "date": "06/29/22",
+    "document_type": "Judgment in a Criminal Case",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 8\nAO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case\nSheet 3 — Supervised Release\nJudgment—Page 4 of 8\nDEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nCASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)\nSUPERVISED RELEASE\nUpon release from imprisonment, you will be on supervised release for a term of:\n3 Years on Counts 3 and 4. 5 Years on Count 6 to run concurrently.\nMANDATORY CONDITIONS\n1. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.\n2. You must not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.\n3. You must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. You must submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court.\nThe above drug testing condition is suspended, based on the court's determination that you pose a low risk of future substance abuse. (check if applicable)\n4. You must make restitution in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A or any other statute authorizing a sentence of restitution. (check if applicable)\n5. You must cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. (check if applicable)\n6. You must comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.) as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in the location where you reside, work, are a student, or were convicted of a qualifying offense. (check if applicable)\n7. You must participate in an approved program for domestic violence. (check if applicable)\nYou must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any other conditions on the attached page.\nDOJ-OGR-00011162",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 696 Filed 06/29/22 Page 4 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AO 245B (Rev. 09/19) Judgment in a Criminal Case\nSheet 3 — Supervised Release",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Judgment—Page 4 of 8",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEFENDANT: GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nCASE NUMBER: S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SUPERVISED RELEASE\nUpon release from imprisonment, you will be on supervised release for a term of:\n3 Years on Counts 3 and 4. 5 Years on Count 6 to run concurrently.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "MANDATORY CONDITIONS",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. You must not commit another federal, state or local crime.\n2. You must not unlawfully possess a controlled substance.\n3. You must refrain from any unlawful use of a controlled substance. You must submit to one drug test within 15 days of release from imprisonment and at least two periodic drug tests thereafter, as determined by the court.\nThe above drug testing condition is suspended, based on the court's determination that you pose a low risk of future substance abuse. (check if applicable)\n4. You must make restitution in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §§ 3663 and 3663A or any other statute authorizing a sentence of restitution. (check if applicable)\n5. You must cooperate in the collection of DNA as directed by the probation officer. (check if applicable)\n6. You must comply with the requirements of the Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (34 U.S.C. § 20901, et seq.) as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in the location where you reside, work, are a student, or were convicted of a qualifying offense. (check if applicable)\n7. You must participate in an approved program for domestic violence. (check if applicable)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "You must comply with the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any other conditions on the attached page.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011162",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Bureau of Prisons"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "06/29/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "696",
+      "S2 20 CR 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011162"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a judgment in a criminal case, specifically a supervised release document. It contains the defendant's name, case number, and details about the supervised release, including mandatory conditions. The document is printed and does not contain any handwritten text or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011167.json

@@ -0,0 +1,107 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": null,
+    "document_number": "697",
+    "date": "07/07/2022",
+    "document_type": "Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 697 Filed 07/07/2022\nCriminal Notice of Appeal - Form A\nNOTICE OF APPEAL\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nCaption:\nUnited States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell\nDocket No. S2 20 Cr. 330\nAlison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) (District Court Judge)\nNotice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment , other entered in this action on 6/29/2022 (date)\nThis appeal concerns: Conviction only Sentence only Conviction & Sentence Other \nDefendant found guilty by plea trial N/A .\nOffense occurred after November 1, 1987? Yes No N/A\nDate of sentence: 6/28/2022 N/A\nBail/Jail Disposition: Committed Not committed N/A\nAppellant is represented by counsel? Yes No If yes, provide the following information:\nDefendant's Counsel: Bobbi C. Sternheim, Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim\nCounsel's Address: 225 Broadway, Suite 715 New York, NY 10007\nCounsel's Phone: 212-243-1100\nAssistant U.S. Attorney: Maurene Comey\nAUSA's Address: One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, NY 10007\nAUSA's Phone: 212-637-2324\n* FOR FILING OF NOTICE OF APPEAL ONLY\n** NOT RETAINED FOR REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL\nSignature\nDOJ-OGR-00011167",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 697 Filed 07/07/2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Criminal Notice of Appeal - Form A",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "NOTICE OF APPEAL",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States District Court",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Caption: United States of America v Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Docket No. S2 20 Cr. 330",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alison J. Nathan (S.D.N.Y.) (District Court Judge)",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Notice is hereby given that Ghislaine Maxwell appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit from the judgment , other entered in this action on 6/29/2022 (date)",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "7/7/2022",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY FILED DOC#: DATE FILED: 7/7/2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "U.S. DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Maurene Comey"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "6/29/2022",
+      "6/28/2022",
+      "7/7/2022",
+      "November 1, 1987"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "697",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011167"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a Notice of Appeal filed on July 7, 2022, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The appeal is filed by Ghislaine Maxwell, represented by Bobbi C. Sternheim, against the judgment entered on June 29, 2022. The document contains handwritten notes and stamps indicating the filing date and other relevant information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011168.json

@@ -0,0 +1,93 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1/1",
+    "document_number": "697",
+    "date": "07/07/22",
+    "document_type": "Receipt",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 697 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 2 Generated: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM Page 1/1 U.S. District Court New York Southern - Manhattan Receipt Date: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM BOBBI C. STERNHEIM FBO GHISLAINE MAXWELL Rcpt. No: 2280 Trans. Date: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM Cashier ID: #ST CD Purpose Case/Party/Defendant Qty Price Amt 203 Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee 1 505.00 505.00 CD Tender Amt CC Credit Card $505.00 Total Due: $505.00 Total Tendered: $505.00 Total Cash Received: $0.00 Cash Change Amount: $0.00 Comments: 20CR330-1 AJN Only when the bank clears the check, money order, or verifies credit of funds, is the fee or debt officially paid or discharged. A $53 fee will be charged for a returned check. DOJ-OGR-00011168",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 697 Filed 07/07/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Generated: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM Page 1/1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. District Court New York Southern - Manhattan",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Receipt Date: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BOBBI C. STERNHEIM FBO GHISLAINE MAXWELL",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Rcpt. No: 2280 Trans. Date: Jul 7, 2022 11:56AM Cashier ID: #ST",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CD Purpose Case/Party/Defendant Qty Price Amt 203 Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee 1 505.00 505.00",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CD Tender Amt CC Credit Card $505.00 Total Due: $505.00 Total Tendered: $505.00 Total Cash Received: $0.00 Cash Change Amount: $0.00",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Comments: 20CR330-1 AJN",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Only when the bank clears the check, money order, or verifies credit of funds, is the fee or debt officially paid or discharged. A $53 fee will be charged for a returned check.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011168",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. District Court",
+      "New York Southern - Manhattan"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Manhattan"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "Jul 7, 2022",
+      "07/07/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "697",
+      "2280",
+      "20CR330-1 AJN",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011168"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a receipt from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, confirming a payment of $505.00 for a Notice of Appeal/Docketing Fee."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011169.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "698",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 698 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2 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 July 12, 2022 By ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Sitting by Designation 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: In response to the Court's June 26, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 689), the Government and defense conferred regarding proposed redactions to motions that have not previously been docketed. The Government is today docketing nine letters previously filed by the Government, and submitting proposed redactions or sealing requests as to four of those letters. The defense has reviewed the Government's proposed redactions and does not object. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these letters are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of witnesses, including individuals who are subjects of the Court's pseudonym order and information protected by Fed. R. Evid. 412, and individuals who were not called as witnesses at trial. DOJ-OGR-00011169",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 698 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2",
+      "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 July 12, 2022",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "By ECF The Honorable Alison J. Nathan, Sitting by Designation 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, S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear Judge Nathan: In response to the Court's June 26, 2022 Order (Dkt. No. 689), the Government and defense conferred regarding proposed redactions to motions that have not previously been docketed. The Government is today docketing nine letters previously filed by the Government, and submitting proposed redactions or sealing requests as to four of those letters. The defense has reviewed the Government's proposed redactions and does not object. The Government's proposed redactions are consistent with the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Although these letters are judicial documents subject to the common law presumption of access, the limited proposed redactions are narrowly tailored to protect the privacy interests of witnesses, including individuals who are subjects of the Court's pseudonym order and information protected by Fed. R. Evid. 412, and individuals who were not called as witnesses at trial.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011169",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Onondaga"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "July 12, 2022",
+      "June 26, 2022",
+      "2006"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "698",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "689",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011169"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 discusses proposed redactions to motions and is accompanied by a stamp from the U.S. Department of Justice."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011170.json

@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2 of 2",
+    "document_number": "698",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 698 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2 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 ECF) DOJ-OGR-00011170",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 698 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "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 ECF)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011170",
+      "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",
+      "698",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011170"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block and a distribution list. The text is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011174.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "700",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 6 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 2, 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 to highlight two exhibits on which the Court has reserved, and which the Government now expects to offer at trial tomorrow: Government Exhibit 52, the contact book, and Government Exhibit 606, the household manual. I. Applicable Law The Second Circuit has \"often commented that the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.\" United States v. Al-Moyad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The \"proponent of the evidence is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.\" United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). All that is required is \"sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or DOJ-OGR-00011174",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 6",
+      "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 2, 2021",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "margin"
+    },
+    {
+      "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) Dear Judge Nathan: The Government respectfully submits this letter to highlight two exhibits on which the Court has reserved, and which the Government now expects to offer at trial tomorrow: Government Exhibit 52, the contact book, and Government Exhibit 606, the household manual. I. Applicable Law The Second Circuit has \"often commented that the bar for authentication of evidence is not particularly high.\" United States v. Al-Moyad, 545 F.3d 139, 172 (2d Cir. 2008) (alteration and internal quotation marks omitted). The \"proponent of the evidence is not required to rule out all possibilities inconsistent with authenticity, or to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the evidence is what it purports to be.\" United States v. Dhinsa, 243 F.3d 635, 658 (2d Cir. 2001). All that is required is \"sufficient proof . . . so that a reasonable juror could find in favor of authenticity or DOJ-OGR-00011174",
+      "position": "body"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Al-Moyad",
+      "Dhinsa"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Second Circuit"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 2, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 700",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "Government Exhibit 52",
+      "Government Exhibit 606",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011174"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, discussing the authentication of evidence in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is stamped and has a header with the department's information. The text is printed, and there is no handwritten content."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011175.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "700",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 6 identification.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The \"standard for authentication is one of 'reasonable likelihood' and is 'minimal.' The testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After this low bar is satisfied, \"the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges to go the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility.\" United States v. Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphases in original).\n\nII. Government Exhibit 52\n\nThe Court has received extensive briefing on Government Exhibit 52, the defendant's contact book. (See Dkt. Nos. 390, 397, 398, 457, 490, 491). To summarize, the Government's argument for authentication has to date relied on the testimony of a former employee (\"Employee-1\") of Epstein's who worked for him in [REDACTED] along with a household manual that corroborates that multiple copies of the contact book existed. (See Dkt. No. 457, 491). The defense challenges that authentication because Employee-1 cannot state that she has previously seen the particular contact book that is Government Exhibit 52—although she does recognize it as one of a set of the defendant's contact books in that house when she worked at Epstein's Palm Beach house [REDACTED]. The Court has reserved judgment on this issue until Employee-1 testifies at trial. (11/23/21 Tr. at 16).1\n\n1 To be clear, the Government continues to believe that Employee-1 can authenticate Government Exhibit 52, but respectfully submits that the following is an independent basis for admission.\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00011175",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "identification.\" Id. (internal quotation marks omitted); see Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The \"standard for authentication is one of 'reasonable likelihood' and is 'minimal.' The testimony of a witness with knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be is sufficient to satisfy this standard.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). After this low bar is satisfied, \"the other party then remains free to challenge the reliability of the evidence, to minimize its importance, or to argue alternative interpretations of its meaning, but these and similar other challenges to go the weight of the evidence—not to its admissibility.\" United States v. Tan Yat Chin, 371 F.3d 31, 38 (2d Cir. 2004) (emphases in original).",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "II. Government Exhibit 52",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Court has received extensive briefing on Government Exhibit 52, the defendant's contact book. (See Dkt. Nos. 390, 397, 398, 457, 490, 491). To summarize, the Government's argument for authentication has to date relied on the testimony of a former employee (\"Employee-1\") of Epstein's who worked for him in [REDACTED] along with a household manual that corroborates that multiple copies of the contact book existed. (See Dkt. No. 457, 491). The defense challenges that authentication because Employee-1 cannot state that she has previously seen the particular contact book that is Government Exhibit 52—although she does recognize it as one of a set of the defendant's contact books in that house when she worked at Epstein's Palm Beach house [REDACTED]. The Court has reserved judgment on this issue until Employee-1 testifies at trial. (11/23/21 Tr. at 16).1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 To be clear, the Government continues to believe that Employee-1 can authenticate Government Exhibit 52, but respectfully submits that the following is an independent basis for admission.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011175",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Employee-1",
+      "Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Palm Beach"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/23/21"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 700",
+      "Dkt. Nos. 390, 397, 398, 457, 490, 491",
+      "Dkt. No. 457, 491",
+      "Government Exhibit 52",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011175"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011179.json

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "700",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 6\n\nAlessi is therefore a witness able to authenticate the Government Exhibit 606. Although the manual itself is dated to 2005 on its face, Alessi is expected to testify that the exhibit is largely unchanged from the version he had when he received from the defendant and Epstein. He is therefore a witness with \"knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be,\" which \"is sufficient to satisfy [the authentication] standard.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007); see id. (\"Based on the[] testimony [that electronic communications were accurate], a reasonable juror could have found that the exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and online chats were editable.\").5\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\n\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York\n\nCc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)\n\n5 The Government also expects another employee of Epstein's (\"Employee-2\") to also be able to authenticate the household manual.\n\n6\nDOJ-OGR-00011179",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 700 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 6",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Alessi is therefore a witness able to authenticate the Government Exhibit 606. Although the manual itself is dated to 2005 on its face, Alessi is expected to testify that the exhibit is largely unchanged from the version he had when he received from the defendant and Epstein. He is therefore a witness with \"knowledge that a matter is what it is claimed to be,\" which \"is sufficient to satisfy [the authentication] standard.\" United States v. Gagliardi, 506 F.3d 140, 151 (2d Cir. 2007); see id. (\"Based on the[] testimony [that electronic communications were accurate], a reasonable juror could have found that the exhibits did represent those conversations, notwithstanding that the e-mails and online chats were editable.\").5",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "By: 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": "5 The Government also expects another employee of Epstein's (\"Employee-2\") to also be able to authenticate the household manual.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "6",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011179",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alessi",
+      "Damian Williams",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach",
+      "Epstein"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "2005",
+      "2007"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 700",
+      "Government Exhibit 606",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011179"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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-00011180.json

@@ -0,0 +1,86 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "701",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 10 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 7, 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 in response to the defense letter motion to preclude testimony by Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is no reason to exclude any of Flatley's expected testimony or to delay his cross-examination. The Government believes that Flatley's expected testimony does not constitute expert opinion testimony. However, even if some aspect of his testimony were characterized as expert opinion, the Government has provided sufficient notice for such testimony and Flatley is undisputedly qualified to give it. And there is certainly no reason to preclude his testimony based on the defendant's late-breaking objection. I. Factual Background On September 15, 2021, the Government wrote the defendant a letter notifying her that it 1 DOJ-OGR-00011180",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 December 7, 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": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "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 in response to the defense letter motion to preclude testimony by Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "There is no reason to exclude any of Flatley's expected testimony or to delay his cross-examination. The Government believes that Flatley's expected testimony does not constitute expert opinion testimony. However, even if some aspect of his testimony were characterized as expert opinion, the Government has provided sufficient notice for such testimony and Flatley is undisputedly qualified to give it. And there is certainly no reason to preclude his testimony based on the defendant's late-breaking objection.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I. Factual Background On September 15, 2021, the Government wrote the defendant a letter notifying her that it",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 DOJ-OGR-00011180",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Stephen Flatley"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "Federal Bureau of Investigation",
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "December 7, 2021",
+      "September 15, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 701",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011180"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 typed and contains official letterhead and formatting. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011188.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "701",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 10\n\nGovernment is able to “prepare a meaningful cross-examination”), and is not called for under these circumstances. At most, the Court should permit the defense additional time to prepare their cross-examination of Flatley.\n\nFinally, the Government notes that the defendant has given far less detailed expert notice than the Government has, despite the Court’s order for the defendant to supplement her expert notice. (See 11/23/21 Tr. at 25 (directing the defense to supplement their notice by November 27)). A copy of the defense supplemental letter is attached as Exhibit B. For instance, a principal defense concern at the Final Pretrial Conference concerned a lack of certainty about the “methods that [Flatley’s] used” to extract data and uncertainty about “exactly what documents Mr. Flatley intends to refer to.” (Id. at 21, 23). The Government’s November 26 letter identifies the specific methods Flatley used and the specific exhibits about which he will testify. The defendant’s November 27 letter identifies neither any methods nor any specific exhibits. The defendant’s expert notice should at a minimum be held to the same standard as the Government. But there are certainly no grounds for the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the Government’s detailed expert notice.\n\nIV. Conclusion\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion to preclude.\n\n9\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011188",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 10",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Government is able to “prepare a meaningful cross-examination”), and is not called for under these circumstances. At most, the Court should permit the defense additional time to prepare their cross-examination of Flatley.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, the Government notes that the defendant has given far less detailed expert notice than the Government has, despite the Court’s order for the defendant to supplement her expert notice. (See 11/23/21 Tr. at 25 (directing the defense to supplement their notice by November 27)). A copy of the defense supplemental letter is attached as Exhibit B. For instance, a principal defense concern at the Final Pretrial Conference concerned a lack of certainty about the “methods that [Flatley’s] used” to extract data and uncertainty about “exactly what documents Mr. Flatley intends to refer to.” (Id. at 21, 23). The Government’s November 26 letter identifies the specific methods Flatley used and the specific exhibits about which he will testify. The defendant’s November 27 letter identifies neither any methods nor any specific exhibits. The defendant’s expert notice should at a minimum be held to the same standard as the Government. But there are certainly no grounds for the defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the Government’s detailed expert notice.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IV. Conclusion",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "For the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion to preclude.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "9",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011188",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Flatley",
+      "Mr. Flatley"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Court",
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/23/21",
+      "November 27",
+      "November 26"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 701",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011188",
+      "Exhibit B"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is well-formatted and printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is page 9 of 10."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011189.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "10",
+    "document_number": "701",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 10 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) 10 DOJ-OGR-00011189",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701 Filed 07/12/22 Page 10 of 10",
+      "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",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Cc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "10",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011189",
+      "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",
+      "701",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011189"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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-00011190.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "701-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A DOJ-OGR-00011190",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Exhibit A",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011190",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "701-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011190"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The main content is labeled 'Exhibit A' with no additional text on this page."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011191.json

@@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2 of 4",
+    "document_number": "701-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 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 November 26, 2021 BY ELECTRONIC MAIL Christian Everdell, Esq. Cohen & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. New York, NY 10007 Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN) Dear Counsel: The Government expects to offer testimony from Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (\"FBI\") Computer Analysis Response Team (\"CART\"). As noted in the Government's September 15, 2021 letter, although the Government believes that Examiner Flatley's testimony will not require admission through Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Government provided expert notice. In an abundance of caution, the Government is providing additional description of Examiner Flatley's anticipated testimony. The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will testify regarding the forensic examination of the devices marked for identification as Government Exhibits 54 and 55, and his determination that those exhibits are clones. He is expected to testify that a clone is an exact copy of one piece of media to another. Examiner Flatley is expected to explain that he connected Government Exhibits 54 and 55 to a write blocker and subsequently imaged, or made an exact copy, of the exhibits. The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will explain that the images of Government Exhibits 54 and 55 are exact copies of the original devices because he ran a hash, or mathematical algorithm that uniquely identifies data, on the original devices and the images, which are identical. DOJ-OGR-00011191",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 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 November 26, 2021",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "BY ELECTRONIC MAIL",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Christian Everdell, Esq. Cohen & Gresser LLP 800 Third Avenue New York, NY 10022 Laura Menninger, Esq. Jeffrey Pagliuca, Esq. Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C. 150 East Tenth Avenue Denver, CO 80203 Bobbi Sternheim, Esq. Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim 33 West 19th Street-4th Fl. 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 Counsel: The Government expects to offer testimony from Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's (\"FBI\") Computer Analysis Response Team (\"CART\"). As noted in the Government's September 15, 2021 letter, although the Government believes that Examiner Flatley's testimony will not require admission through Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Government provided expert notice. In an abundance of caution, the Government is providing additional description of Examiner Flatley's anticipated testimony.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will testify regarding the forensic examination of the devices marked for identification as Government Exhibits 54 and 55, and his determination that those exhibits are clones. He is expected to testify that a clone is an exact copy of one piece of media to another. Examiner Flatley is expected to explain that he connected Government Exhibits 54 and 55 to a write blocker and subsequently imaged, or made an exact copy, of the exhibits. The Government anticipates that Examiner Flatley will explain that the images of Government Exhibits 54 and 55 are exact copies of the original devices because he ran a hash, or mathematical algorithm that uniquely identifies data, on the original devices and the images, which are identical.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011191",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Christian Everdell",
+      "Laura Menninger",
+      "Jeffrey Pagliuca",
+      "Bobbi Sternheim",
+      "Stephen Flatley",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "Cohen & Gresser LLP",
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C.",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Federal Bureau of Investigation"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Denver",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "November 26, 2021",
+      "September 15, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "701-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011191"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to counsel regarding the testimony of Computer Forensic Examiner Stephen Flatley in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The document is well-formatted and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011193.json

@@ -0,0 +1,65 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4 of 4",
+    "document_number": "701-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4\nPage 3\nVery truly yours,\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\nby: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nDOJ-OGR-00011193",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Page 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Very truly yours,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "by: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011193",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "DAMIAN WILLIAMS",
+      "Maurene Comey",
+      "Alison Moe",
+      "Lara Pomerantz",
+      "Andrew Rohrbach"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States Attorney"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "701-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011193"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature block. The text is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011194.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "701-2",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit B DOJ-OGR-00011194",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Exhibit B",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011194",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "701-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011194"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court exhibit with a clear header and footer. The content is mostly blank with 'Exhibit B' centered on the page."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011196.json

@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "701-2",
+    "date": "July 12, 2022",
+    "document_type": null,
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3\nMs. Comey, Moe and Pomerantz\nNovember 27, 2021\nPage 2\nRespectfully submitted,\nLaura A. Menninger\nCC: Counsel of Record via email\nDOJ-OGR-00011196",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 701-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 3",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Comey, Moe and Pomerantz\nNovember 27, 2021\nPage 2",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "CC: Counsel of Record via email",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011196",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Ms. Comey",
+      "Moe",
+      "Pomerantz"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "July 12, 2022",
+      "November 27, 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "701-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011196"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a signature and contact information. The image is rotated 90 degrees counterclockwise."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011197.json

@@ -0,0 +1,82 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1 of 4",
+    "document_number": "702",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4\nHaddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nLaura A. Menninger\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, Colorado 80203\nPH 303.831.7364\nFX 303.832.2628\nwww.hmflaw.com\njpagliuca@hmflaw.com\nDecember 17, 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 to request that this Court issue an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino and direct the U.S. Marshals to detain her until she is willing to give the testimony she has been ordered to provide.\nMs. Bovino was served with a subpoena on November 30, 2021. Exhibits 1 & 2. The subpoena was issued by the Clerk of this Court. Ms. Bovino has failed to comply with this Court's subpoena and order and is unwilling to testify as the subpoena commands. Testimony by deposition is not possible.\nDOJ-OGR-00011197",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C\nLaura A. Menninger\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 17, 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 to request that this Court issue an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino and direct the U.S. Marshals to detain her until she is willing to give the testimony she has been ordered to provide.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Bovino was served with a subpoena on November 30, 2021. Exhibits 1 & 2. The subpoena was issued by the Clerk of this Court. Ms. Bovino has failed to comply with this Court's subpoena and order and is unwilling to testify as the subpoena commands. Testimony by deposition is not possible.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011197",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kelly Bovino",
+      "Laura A. Menninger"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan and Foreman, P.C",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "U.S. Marshals"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver",
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "November 30, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011197",
+      "702"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from a law firm to a judge, discussing a court case and requesting an arrest warrant for a witness who has failed to comply with a subpoena."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011199.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "702",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 4\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 17, 2021\nPage 3\nfrom an order of confinement under this section shall be disposed of as soon as practicable, but not later than thirty days from the filing of such appeal.\n(c) Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of any facility or from any place in which or to which he is confined pursuant to this section or section 4243 of title 18, or whoever rescues or attempts to rescue or instigates, aids, or assists the escape or attempt to escape of such a person, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than three years, or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.\n28 U.S.C. § 1826.\nThis Court also has authority to order the arrest of Ms. Bovino under the Material Witness Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144. That statute says:\nIf it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title.\n18 U.S.C. § 3144. The required affidavit is attached as Exhibit 3 to this letter.\nOn information and belief, this is the last known contact information for Ms. Bovino and her attorney:\nMs. Bovino:\n[REDACTED]\nCounsel:\nBecky S. James\nJames & Associates\n4500 Park Granada, Suite 202\nCalabasas, CA 91302\n310-492-5104\nbjames@jamesaa.com\nDOJ-OGR-00011199",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 17, 2021\nPage 3",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "from an order of confinement under this section shall be disposed of as soon as practicable, but not later than thirty days from the filing of such appeal.\n(c) Whoever escapes or attempts to escape from the custody of any facility or from any place in which or to which he is confined pursuant to this section or section 4243 of title 18, or whoever rescues or attempts to rescue or instigates, aids, or assists the escape or attempt to escape of such a person, shall be subject to imprisonment for not more than three years, or a fine of not more than $10,000, or both.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "28 U.S.C. § 1826.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This Court also has authority to order the arrest of Ms. Bovino under the Material Witness Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3144. That statute says:\nIf it appears from an affidavit filed by a party that the testimony of a person is material in a criminal proceeding, and if it is shown that it may become impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena, a judicial officer may order the arrest of the person and treat the person in accordance with the provisions of section 3142 of this title.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "18 U.S.C. § 3144. The required affidavit is attached as Exhibit 3 to this letter.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "On information and belief, this is the last known contact information for Ms. Bovino and her attorney:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Ms. Bovino:\n[REDACTED]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Counsel:\nBecky S. James\nJames & Associates\n4500 Park Granada, Suite 202\nCalabasas, CA 91302\n310-492-5104\nbjames@jamesaa.com",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011199",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ms. Bovino",
+      "Becky S. James"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "James & Associates"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Calabasas, CA"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 702",
+      "28 U.S.C. § 1826",
+      "18 U.S.C. § 3144",
+      "18 U.S.C. § 3142",
+      "Exhibit 3",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011199"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a redacted section for Ms. Bovino's contact information."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011200.json

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "702",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 17, 2021\nPage 4\nPursuant to its inherent power to secure compliance with its orders, its contempt power,\nand these statutes, this Court should issue an arrest warrant and direct the U.S. Marshals to\nexecute the warrant and deliver Ms. Bovino to this Court for her detention until she is willing to\ntestify.\ns/ Laura A. Menninger\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-00011200",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 4",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nDecember 17, 2021\nPage 4",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Pursuant to its inherent power to secure compliance with its orders, its contempt power,\nand these statutes, this Court should issue an arrest warrant and direct the U.S. Marshals to\nexecute the warrant and deliver Ms. Bovino to this Court for her detention until she is willing to\ntestify.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Laura A. Menninger",
+      "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-00011200",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Jeffrey S. Pagliuca",
+      "Ms. Bovino",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "Bobbi C. Sternheim",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Marshals",
+      "HADDON, MORGAN & FOREMAN P.C.",
+      "COHEN & GRESSER LLP",
+      "Law Offices of Bobbi C. Sternheim"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Denver, CO",
+      "New York, NY"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 702",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011200"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. It is a formal legal document with printed text and a signature. There are no visible stamps or handwritten notes."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011201.json

@@ -0,0 +1,98 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "702-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1\nAO 89 (Rev. 08/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nfor the\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States of America\nv.\nGhislaine Maxwell\nDefendant\nSUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE\nTo: Kelly Bovino Umekubo\nYOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States district court at the time, date, and place shown below to testify in this criminal case. When you arrive, you must remain at the court until the judge or a court officer allows you to leave.\nPlace of Appearance: United States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nCourtroom No.: 318\nDate and Time: 11/29/2021 9:00 am\nYou must also bring with you the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects (blank if not applicable):\n(SEAL)\nDate: NOV 16 2021\nRUBY J. KRAJICK\nCLERK OF COURT\nSignature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk\nThe name, address, e-mail, and telephone number of the attorney representing (name of party) Ms Ghislaine Maxwell, who requests this subpoena, are:\nChristian R. Everdell\nCohen & Gresser L.L.P.\n800 Third Ave New York NY 10022\n212-957-7600\nDOJ-OGR-00011201",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AO 89 (Rev. 08/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nfor the\nSouthern District of New York",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "United States of America\nv.\nGhislaine Maxwell\nDefendant",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY AT A HEARING OR TRIAL IN A CRIMINAL CASE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Kelly Bovino Umekubo",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "YOU ARE COMMANDED to appear in the United States district court at the time, date, and place shown below to testify in this criminal case. When you arrive, you must remain at the court until the judge or a court officer allows you to leave.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Place of Appearance: United States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, NY 10007\nCourtroom No.: 318\nDate and Time: 11/29/2021 9:00 am",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "You must also bring with you the following documents, electronically stored information, or objects (blank if not applicable):",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "RUBY J. KRAJICK\nCLERK OF COURT",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Christian R. Everdell\nCohen & Gresser L.L.P.\n800 Third Ave New York NY 10022\n212-957-7600",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kelly Bovino Umekubo",
+      "Christian R. Everdell",
+      "RUBY J. KRAJICK"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "Cohen & Gresser L.L.P."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Southern District of New York",
+      "United States Courthouse",
+      "40 Foley Square"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "11/29/2021",
+      "NOV 16 2021"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "702-1",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011201"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a subpoena issued by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is related to the case United States of America v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The subpoena is addressed to Kelly Bovino Umekubo and requires their appearance in court on 11/29/2021 at 9:00 am. The document contains a stamp and signature of the Clerk of Court, RUBY J. KRAJICK. The attorney representing Ghislaine Maxwell is Christian R. Everdell from Cohen & Gresser L.L.P."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011202.json

@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "702-2",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Proof of Service",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1 AO 89 (Rev. 09/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case (Page 2) Case No. PROOF OF SERVICE This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any) KELLY BOVINO UME KUBO was received by me on (date) I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows: KELLY BOVINO UME KUBO on (date) 11/29/2021 or I returned the subpoena unexecuted because: Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00 I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true. Date: 11/29/2021 Server's signature MICHAEL M. SCHWACH Printed name and title 124 TALMADGE IRVINE CA Server's address Additional information regarding attempted service, etc.",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AO 89 (Rev. 09/09) Subpoena to Testify at a Hearing or Trial in a Criminal Case (Page 2)",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case No.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "PROOF OF SERVICE",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "This subpoena for (name of individual and title, if any)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "KELLY BOVINO UME KUBO",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "was received by me on (date)",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "I served the subpoena by delivering a copy to the named person as follows:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "KELLY BOVINO UME KUBO",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "11/29/2021",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Unless the subpoena was issued on behalf of the United States, or one of its officers or agents, I have also tendered to the witness fees for one day's attendance, and the mileage allowed by law, in the amount of $ for travel and $ for services, for a total of $ 0.00",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "11/29/2021",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "MICHAEL M. SCHWACH",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "124 TALMADGE IRVINE CA",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "KELLY BOVINO",
+      "UME KUBO",
+      "MICHAEL M. SCHWACH"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "IRVINE",
+      "CA"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "11/29/2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "702-2"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a proof of service for a subpoena. It appears to be a standard form with some handwritten information. The document is clear and legible."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011203.json

@@ -0,0 +1,96 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "702-3",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Affidavit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-3 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nX\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n\n20-CR-330-AJN\n\nX\nAFFIDAVIT OF LAURA A. MENNINGER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 3144\n\nI, Laura A. Menninger, an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3144:\n\n1. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) in the above captioned case.\n\n2. Kelly Bovino is a material witness in this case for the defense. As described in Ms. Maxwell’s December 16, 2021 letter to this Court opposing the government’s motion to preclude Ms. Bovino from testifying, which Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference, Ms. Bovino has relevant, material, and exculpatory testimony to provide in Ms. Maxwell’s defense.\n\n3. Ms. Bovino was served with a trial subpoena, issued by this Court’s Clerk, on November 30, 2021.\n\n4. Ms. Bovino is refusing to appear and testify as the subpoena commands.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011203",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-3 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "X\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330-AJN",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "X\nAFFIDAVIT OF LAURA A. MENNINGER UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 3144",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I, Laura A. Menninger, an attorney at law duly licensed in the State of Colorado and admitted to practice in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, declare the following is true and correct under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 3144:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. I am a member of the law firm Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C., counsel of record for Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell (“Maxwell”) in the above captioned case.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Kelly Bovino is a material witness in this case for the defense. As described in Ms. Maxwell’s December 16, 2021 letter to this Court opposing the government’s motion to preclude Ms. Bovino from testifying, which Ms. Maxwell incorporates by reference, Ms. Bovino has relevant, material, and exculpatory testimony to provide in Ms. Maxwell’s defense.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3. Ms. Bovino was served with a trial subpoena, issued by this Court’s Clerk, on November 30, 2021.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4. Ms. Bovino is refusing to appear and testify as the subpoena commands.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011203",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Laura A. Menninger",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kelly Bovino"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Haddon, Morgan & Foreman, P.C.",
+      "United States District Court",
+      "United States of America"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Colorado",
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 16, 2021",
+      "November 30, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "20-CR-330-AJN",
+      "702-3",
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011203"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court filing in a criminal case, specifically an affidavit from Laura A. Menninger regarding a material witness, Kelly Bovino. The document is typed and appears to be in good condition."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011204.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2 of 2",
+    "document_number": "702-3",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-3 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2\n\n5. We made diligent efforts to contact Ms. Bovino and even to put her on call for the testimony.\n6. Ms. Bovino has not responded to our attempts to contact her.\n7. She has not appeared as commanded by the subpoena.\n8. Because Ms. Bovino has refused to comply with the subpoena, it is \"impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena\" under the statute. § 3144.\n9. And because the trial is ongoing, and because Ms. Bovino is not responding to our attempts to contact her, her testimony \"can[not] adequately be secured by deposition.\" § 3144.\n10. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 3144, this Court can order Ms. Bovino's arrest.\n\nI hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.\n\nDated: December 17, 2021.\nNew York, New York\n\ns/ Laura A. Menninger\nLaura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\n303.831.7364\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011204",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-3 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 2",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "5. We made diligent efforts to contact Ms. Bovino and even to put her on call for the testimony.\n6. Ms. Bovino has not responded to our attempts to contact her.\n7. She has not appeared as commanded by the subpoena.\n8. Because Ms. Bovino has refused to comply with the subpoena, it is \"impracticable to secure the presence of the person by subpoena\" under the statute. § 3144.\n9. And because the trial is ongoing, and because Ms. Bovino is not responding to our attempts to contact her, her testimony \"can[not] adequately be secured by deposition.\" § 3144.\n10. Accordingly, under 28 U.S.C. § 3144, this Court can order Ms. Bovino's arrest.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "I hereby certify that the foregoing statements made by me are true. I am aware that if any of the foregoing statements are willfully false, I am subject to punishment.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: December 17, 2021.\nNew York, New York",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "signature",
+      "content": "s/ Laura A. Menninger",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Laura A. Menninger\nHADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C.\n150 East 10th Avenue\nDenver, CO 80203\n303.831.7364",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011204",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ms. Bovino",
+      "Laura A. Menninger"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "HADDON, MORGAN AND FOREMAN, P.C."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Denver, CO"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "702-3",
+      "28 U.S.C. § 3144",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011204"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. It is a typed document with a signature block at the end. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011205.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "702-4",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Order",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-4 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1\n\nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK\n\nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.\n20-CR-330-AJN\n\nORDER\n\nBefore the Court is Ms. Maxwell's December 17, 2021 motion for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino for her non-compliance with a subpoena to testify in this criminal proceeding. The motion is GRANTED.\n\nIt is ORDERED that an arrest warrant for Ms. Bovino will issue.\n\nIt is FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshals are directed to arrest Ms. Bovino and to bring her to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York.\n\nDated: December 17, 2021.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011205",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 702-4 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 1",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,\nPlaintiff,\nv.\nGHISLAINE MAXWELL,\nDefendant.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "20-CR-330-AJN",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "ORDER",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Before the Court is Ms. Maxwell's December 17, 2021 motion for an arrest warrant for Kelly Bovino for her non-compliance with a subpoena to testify in this criminal proceeding. The motion is GRANTED.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is ORDERED that an arrest warrant for Ms. Bovino will issue.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "It is FURTHER ORDERED that the U.S. Marshals are directed to arrest Ms. Bovino and to bring her to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse at 40 Foley Square, New York, New York.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dated: December 17, 2021.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011205",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Kelly Bovino"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "United States District Court",
+      "U.S. Marshals"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Southern District of New York",
+      "Thurgood Marshall U.S. Courthouse",
+      "40 Foley Square"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 17, 2021",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 702-4",
+      "20-CR-330-AJN",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011205"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 and official document, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011206.json

@@ -0,0 +1,92 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "703",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Letter",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 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 December 12, 2021 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 moving to preclude one exhibit which the defendant produced in Rule 16 discovery Friday night. Following the close of the Government's case in chief, the defendant produced her witness list and Rule 26.2 disclosures. In addition, the defendant attached two new documents as Rule 16 discovery: a sale agreement for the defendant's London home at 44 Kinnerton Street (attached as Exhibit A) and a judicial opinion in United States v. Epstein, 96 Civ. 8307 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 1998). The Government seeks to preclude the sale agreement under Rule 16.1 The sale agreement should have been disclosed on November 8, 2021, the Court's deadline 1 Although the judicial opinion does not appear to be admissible, the Government plans to confer with the defense on that document. 1 DOJ-OGR-00011206",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 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",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The Silvio J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 December 12, 2021",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "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 respectfully submits this letter moving to preclude one exhibit which the defendant produced in Rule 16 discovery Friday night. Following the close of the Government's case in chief, the defendant produced her witness list and Rule 26.2 disclosures. In addition, the defendant attached two new documents as Rule 16 discovery: a sale agreement for the defendant's London home at 44 Kinnerton Street (attached as Exhibit A) and a judicial opinion in United States v. Epstein, 96 Civ. 8307 (DC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 1998). The Government seeks to preclude the sale agreement under Rule 16.1 The sale agreement should have been disclosed on November 8, 2021, the Court's deadline",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 Although the judicial opinion does not appear to be admissible, the Government plans to confer with the defense on that document.",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011206",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "",
+      "position": "margin"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Alison J. Nathan",
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "U.S. Department of Justice",
+      "United States Attorney",
+      "United States District Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "London",
+      "Southern District of New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 12, 2021",
+      "November 8, 2021",
+      "Mar. 31, 1998",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 703",
+      "S2 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
+      "96 Civ. 8307 (DC)"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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 document is stamped and has a clear header and footer."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011209.json

@@ -0,0 +1,83 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "703",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7 Government's case—the defendant provided a supplemental disclosure of material under Rule 16(b)(1)(A). Document “Rule 16_007” appears to be a sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, dated December 19, 1996. Although the defense has not specified the relevance of this document, it appears to be offered in service of the argument that the defendant did not live at this address in 1994, which is when Kate testified she first visited the defendant there. To be clear, the document does not actually establish that fact: The defendant herself has testified under oath that she lived in the 44 Kinnerton Street residence beginning in 1992 or 1993 (see Exhibit B), and even assuming the date of sale is accurate, it hardly precludes the possibility that the defendant lived there at an earlier date.2 III. Discussion The defendant's decision to withhold the sale agreement until the close of the Government's case violates her Rule 16 obligations. The records were within her possession, custody, and control long before trial, and the theory for which the Government expects the defendant to use the agreement has been apparent since the Government's production of Jencks Act material in mid-October, before the defendant's initial Rule 16 deadline. By failing to disclose the agreement until the close of the Government's case, the defendant has prevented the Government from conducting a full investigation, causing prejudice to the Government. The Court 2 Nor does it preclude the possibility that Kate was simply mistaken about which of the defendant's London residences she first visited. 4 DOJ-OGR-00011209",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Government's case—the defendant provided a supplemental disclosure of material under Rule 16(b)(1)(A). Document “Rule 16_007” appears to be a sale agreement for the defendant's home at 44 Kinnerton Street, London, dated December 19, 1996.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Although the defense has not specified the relevance of this document, it appears to be offered in service of the argument that the defendant did not live at this address in 1994, which is when Kate testified she first visited the defendant there. To be clear, the document does not actually establish that fact: The defendant herself has testified under oath that she lived in the 44 Kinnerton Street residence beginning in 1992 or 1993 (see Exhibit B), and even assuming the date of sale is accurate, it hardly precludes the possibility that the defendant lived there at an earlier date.2",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "III. Discussion",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The defendant's decision to withhold the sale agreement until the close of the Government's case violates her Rule 16 obligations. The records were within her possession, custody, and control long before trial, and the theory for which the Government expects the defendant to use the agreement has been apparent since the Government's production of Jencks Act material in mid-October, before the defendant's initial Rule 16 deadline. By failing to disclose the agreement until the close of the Government's case, the defendant has prevented the Government from conducting a full investigation, causing prejudice to the Government. The Court",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2 Nor does it preclude the possibility that Kate was simply mistaken about which of the defendant's London residences she first visited.",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "4",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011209",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Kate",
+      "defendant"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "Court"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "44 Kinnerton Street",
+      "London"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "December 19, 1996",
+      "1992",
+      "1993",
+      "1994",
+      "mid-October",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703",
+      "Rule 16_007",
+      "Exhibit B",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011209"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a page number at the bottom. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011211.json

@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "703",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 7 Third, this failure to disclose has caused prejudice to the Government. The sale agreement is an isolated document with a handwritten date, and it .3 The Government should have an opportunity to investigate and obtain records from the United Kingdom regarding the defendant's place of residence in the mid-1990s. 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. And there is every reason for the Government to seek to investigate this document: the defendant has previously testified, under oath in a deposition, that she lived at the Kinnerton Street address beginning in 1992 or 1993. (See Exhibit B at 8). Such an investigation did not become necessary until the defendant sought to introduce a document in support of an apparent argument that, contrary to that testimony, the defendant lived elsewhere prior to the purchase of this home. Fourth, no remedy other than preclusion is appropriate. Insofar as the defendant waited until now to disclose the agreement, she \"ran the risk that the exhibit would be excluded.\" Napout, 2017 WL 6375729, at *8. Its introduction would prejudice the Government, and it should be so excluded. Finally, the agreement should be excluded under Rule 403. As explained above, the agreement runs the risk of \"confusing the issues\" and \"misleading the jury\" by presenting a document from which the jury is asked to infer conclusions that range far beyond the evidence. 3 6 DOJ-OGR-00011211",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Third, this failure to disclose has caused prejudice to the Government. The sale agreement is an isolated document with a handwritten date, and it .3 The Government should have an opportunity to investigate and obtain records from the United Kingdom regarding the defendant's place of residence in the mid-1990s. 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. And there is every reason for the Government to seek to investigate this document: the defendant has previously testified, under oath in a deposition, that she lived at the Kinnerton Street address beginning in 1992 or 1993. (See Exhibit B at 8). Such an investigation did not become necessary until the defendant sought to introduce a document in support of an apparent argument that, contrary to that testimony, the defendant lived elsewhere prior to the purchase of this home.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Fourth, no remedy other than preclusion is appropriate. Insofar as the defendant waited until now to disclose the agreement, she \"ran the risk that the exhibit would be excluded.\" Napout, 2017 WL 6375729, at *8. Its introduction would prejudice the Government, and it should be so excluded.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Finally, the agreement should be excluded under Rule 403. As explained above, the agreement runs the risk of \"confusing the issues\" and \"misleading the jury\" by presenting a document from which the jury is asked to infer conclusions that range far beyond the evidence.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3 6 DOJ-OGR-00011211",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "defendant"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Government",
+      "United Kingdom"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "Kinnerton Street",
+      "United Kingdom"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22",
+      "1992",
+      "1993"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703",
+      "2017 WL 6375729"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains redactions, which may indicate sensitive information. The text is mostly printed, with some potential for OCR errors due to the quality of the image."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011212.json

@@ -0,0 +1,73 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "703",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7\n\nThe probative value of the agreement is substantially outweighed by these risks.\n\nIV. Conclusion\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the Court should preclude the defendant from offering at trial the sale agreement.\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney\n\nBy: s/\nMaurene Comey\nAlison Moe\nLara Pomerantz\nAndrew Rohrbach\nAssistant United States Attorneys\nSouthern District of New York\n\nCc: Defense Counsel (by e-mail)\n\n7\n\nDOJ-OGR-00011212",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703 Filed 07/12/22 Page 7 of 7",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "The probative value of the agreement is substantially outweighed by these risks.\n\nIV. Conclusion\n\nFor the reasons set forth above, the Court should preclude the defendant from offering at trial the sale agreement.",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Respectfully submitted,\n\nDAMIAN WILLIAMS\nUnited States Attorney",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "By: 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": "7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011212",
+      "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",
+      "703",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011212"
+    ]
+  },
+  "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-00011213.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 9 Exhibit A DOJ-OGR-00011213",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Exhibit A",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011213",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011213"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The content is mostly blank except for the title 'Exhibit A' and a unique identifier at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011214.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 9 RULE 16_007 DOJ-OGR-00011214",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 2 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16_007",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011214",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011214"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The content is mostly printed text, with no visible handwriting or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011215.json

@@ -0,0 +1,101 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "letter",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 9 GROSVENOR 1 November 2010 Our ref: R/DCU/aas/44-0111-VFT Response SUBJECT TO CONTRACT & WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dear RE: 44 KINNERTON STREET, LONDON SW1 POSSIBLE VOLUNTARY FREEHOLD TRANSFER Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding Miss Maxwell's interest in the possibility of purchasing the freehold of the above property on a voluntary basis. Grosvenor currently has a policy where we are willing to quote terms to lessees who have leases which were originally granted for more than 21 years. The terms reflect the right under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (as amended). We charge a valuation fee of £2,000 plus VAT (£2,350) payable in advance for preparing this quotation which will be reimbursed if the matter proceeds to completion. Please can you send a cheque payable to Eaton Square Properties Ltd and marked for my attention. We will send you a receipted invoice with our written quotation. Once I have received the above fee and relevant documentation the next stage of the process is for us to inspect the property and I should be grateful for notification of how this can best be arranged. I will be accompanied at this inspection by Paul Tayler who gives his input on market values. I confirm that we approach our valuation to the premium payable on a similar basis to that laid down by the Leasehold Reform legislation. I look forward to receiving our valuation fee and any other relevant documentation in order that we can progress matters. Yours sincerely Debbie Turner MRICS Residential Lease Manager Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Direct Line 020 7312 6235 Email debbie.turner@grosvenor.com GROSVENOR INVESTMENTS LIMITED THE GROSVENOR OFFICE 70 GROSVENOR STREET LONDON W1K 3JP Telephone 020 7408 0988 Facsimile 020 7629 9115 Web www.grosvenor.com Registered Office as above. Registered in England No 547917 RULE 16 007 Page 1 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011215",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GROSVENOR",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 November 2010",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Our ref: R/DCU/aas/44-0111-VFT Response",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SUBJECT TO CONTRACT & WITHOUT PREJUDICE",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Dear RE: 44 KINNERTON STREET, LONDON SW1 POSSIBLE VOLUNTARY FREEHOLD TRANSFER",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Thank you for your recent enquiry regarding Miss Maxwell's interest in the possibility of purchasing the freehold of the above property on a voluntary basis. Grosvenor currently has a policy where we are willing to quote terms to lessees who have leases which were originally granted for more than 21 years. The terms reflect the right under the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 (as amended). We charge a valuation fee of £2,000 plus VAT (£2,350) payable in advance for preparing this quotation which will be reimbursed if the matter proceeds to completion. Please can you send a cheque payable to Eaton Square Properties Ltd and marked for my attention. We will send you a receipted invoice with our written quotation. Once I have received the above fee and relevant documentation the next stage of the process is for us to inspect the property and I should be grateful for notification of how this can best be arranged. I will be accompanied at this inspection by Paul Tayler who gives his input on market values. I confirm that we approach our valuation to the premium payable on a similar basis to that laid down by the Leasehold Reform legislation. I look forward to receiving our valuation fee and any other relevant documentation in order that we can progress matters.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Yours sincerely",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Debbie Turner MRICS Residential Lease Manager",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Grosvenor Britain & Ireland Direct Line 020 7312 6235 Email debbie.turner@grosvenor.com",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GROSVENOR INVESTMENTS LIMITED THE GROSVENOR OFFICE 70 GROSVENOR STREET LONDON W1K 3JP Telephone 020 7408 0988 Facsimile 020 7629 9115 Web www.grosvenor.com Registered Office as above. Registered in England No 547917",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16 007 Page 1 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011215",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Miss Maxwell",
+      "Debbie Turner",
+      "Paul Tayler"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Grosvenor",
+      "Grosvenor Britain & Ireland",
+      "Grosvenor Investments Limited",
+      "Eaton Square Properties Ltd"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "London",
+      "44 Kinnerton Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "1 November 2010",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "R/DCU/aas/44-0111-VFT",
+      "547917",
+      "703-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011215"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a letter from Grosvenor to an unknown recipient regarding the possible voluntary freehold transfer of 44 Kinnerton Street, London SW1. The letter is dated 1 November 2010 and is signed by Debbie Turner, Residential Lease Manager. The document has a header with the case number and document number, and a footer with the company's contact information and registration details."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011216.json

@@ -0,0 +1,66 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Agreement for Sale",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 9 DATED 19 December 1996 and GHISLAINE MAXWELL AGREEMENT FOR SALE - of - 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1 FARRER & CO. 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A 3LH RULE 16_007 Page 2 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011216 Form A. 6.02 pm G. bridge/ Down",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "19 December",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DATED 1996 and GHISLAINE MAXWELL AGREEMENT FOR SALE - of - 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "FARRER & CO. 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A 3LH",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16_007 Page 2 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011216",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Form A. 6.02 pm G. bridge/ Down",
+      "position": "margin"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislain Maxwell"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Farrer & Co."
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "London",
+      "Kinnerton Street",
+      "Lincoln's Inn Fields"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "19 December 1996",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011216"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to Ghislaine Maxwell, with a handwritten date and some notes in the margin. The main content is an 'AGREEMENT FOR SALE' document."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011217.json

@@ -0,0 +1,100 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 9\nAGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY\nTHIS AGREEMENT is made the 19 day of December 1996\n1. Definitions:\n1.1 Vendor : [redacted]\n1.2 Purchaser : GHISLAINE MAXWELL c/o M C Grumbridge Esq The Hogarth Group Airedale Avenue London W4 2NW\n1.3 The Property : 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1 for the unexpired term of the Lease\n1.4 Sale Price : £290,000\n1.5 Vendor sells : with limited title guarantee modified as in Clauses 2.3.2 and 2.3.3\n1.6 Title No : NGL 343662\n1.7 Completion Date : 22 January 1997\n1.8 Vendor's Solicitors : Farrer & Co 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A 3LH Ref: JM\nGR983240 668 1\nRULE 16 007 Page 3 of 7\nDOJ-OGR-00011217",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "THIS AGREEMENT is made the",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "19",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "December",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "1996",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1. Definitions:\n1.1 Vendor :\n1.2 Purchaser : GHISLAINE MAXWELL c/o M C Grumbridge Esq The Hogarth Group Airedale Avenue London W4 2NW\n1.3 The Property : 44 Kinnerton Street London SW1 for the unexpired term of the Lease\n1.4 Sale Price : £290,000\n1.5 Vendor sells : with limited title guarantee modified as in Clauses 2.3.2 and 2.3.3\n1.6 Title No : NGL 343662\n1.7 Completion Date :",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "22 January 1997",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1.8 Vendor's Solicitors : Farrer & Co 66 Lincoln's Inn Fields London WC2A 3LH Ref: JM",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GR983240 668 1",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16 007 Page 3 of 7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011217",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL",
+      "M C Grumbridge"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "The Hogarth Group",
+      "Farrer & Co"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "London",
+      "Airedale Avenue",
+      "Kinnerton Street",
+      "Lincoln's Inn Fields"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "19 December 1996",
+      "22 January 1997",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "NGL 343662",
+      "GR983240 668",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011217"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document contains a redacted section for the vendor's information. The completion date is handwritten as '22 January 1997'. The document is related to a property sale agreement."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011218.json

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 9\n1.9 Purchaser's Solicitors : The Hogarth Group Airedale Avenue London W4 2NW Ref: M C Grumbridge Esq\n1.10 Rate of Interest : 4% above the base rate for the time being of National Westminster Bank plc\n1.11 The Lease\n1.12 The Licences\n2. Special Conditions\n2.1 The Vendor shall sell and the Purchaser shall purchase the Property for the Sale Price\n2.2 A deposit of Ten per centum (10%) of the Sale Price shall be paid on or before the signing hereof by way of Banker's Draft Building Society cheque or Purchaser's Solicitors' Client Account cheque only such deposit to be held by the Vendor's Solicitors as Stakeholders\nGR863240.558 2\nRULE 16_007 Page 4 of 7\nDOJ-OGR-00011218",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1.9 Purchaser's Solicitors : The Hogarth Group Airedale Avenue London W4 2NW Ref: M C Grumbridge Esq",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1.10 Rate of Interest : 4% above the base rate for the time being of National Westminster Bank plc",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1.11 The Lease",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1.12 The Licences",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2. Special Conditions",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.1 The Vendor shall sell and the Purchaser shall purchase the Property for the Sale Price",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.2 A deposit of Ten per centum (10%) of the Sale Price shall be paid on or before the signing hereof by way of Banker's Draft Building Society cheque or Purchaser's Solicitors' Client Account cheque only such deposit to be held by the Vendor's Solicitors as Stakeholders",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GR863240.558 2",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16_007 Page 4 of 7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011218",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "M C Grumbridge"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "The Hogarth Group",
+      "National Westminster Bank plc"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "London"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "GR863240.558",
+      "RULE 16_007",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011218"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a property sale, with details about the purchaser's solicitors, rate of interest, and special conditions. There is a large black rectangle covering part of the content."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011220.json

@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 9\n2.9.2 join in a declaration that it shall not be implied by virtue of the Vendor transferring the Lease that the covenants or any of them contained in the Lease relating to repair and decoration and condition of the Property have been performed up to the date thereof\n2.10 Notwithstanding the completion of the sale and purchase hereby agreed anything herein contained to which effect has not been given by the Transfer to the Purchaser and which is capable of taking effect after completion shall remain in full force and effect\n2.11 The National Conditions of Sale (20th Edition) shall (subject as hereinafter mentioned) be incorporated herein so far as they are applicable to a sale by private treaty and are not inconsistent with the other terms hereof\nSAVE THAT:\nConditions 8(3) 15(2) and (3) and 21(2) and (3) thereof shall not apply and in Condition 6(3) the words \"beneficial occupation\" shall be deleted and the words \"actual occupation\" substituted therefor\n2.12 This Agreement and the benefit and burden thereof are non-assignable and the Vendor shall not be liable to convey assign or transfer the Property the subject of this Agreement to any person firm or company other than the Purchaser\n2.13 If the deposit paid on exchange of Contracts shall be less than Ten per centum (10%) then notwithstanding the payment of that lesser amount the balance of the Ten per centum (10%) shall at all times remain due and owing to the Vendor and in the event of rescission or failure to complete through no fault of the Vendor such balance shall be the liability of the Purchaser to pay to the Vendor\n2.14 In this Agreement\n2.14.1 The masculine gender shall include the feminine and the singular number the plural and vice versa and person includes firm company or corporation\nGR963240.558 5 RULE 16 007 Page 6 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011220",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 8 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.9.2 join in a declaration that it shall not be implied by virtue of the Vendor transferring the Lease that the covenants or any of them contained in the Lease relating to repair and decoration and condition of the Property have been performed up to the date thereof",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.10 Notwithstanding the completion of the sale and purchase hereby agreed anything herein contained to which effect has not been given by the Transfer to the Purchaser and which is capable of taking effect after completion shall remain in full force and effect",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.11 The National Conditions of Sale (20th Edition) shall (subject as hereinafter mentioned) be incorporated herein so far as they are applicable to a sale by private treaty and are not inconsistent with the other terms hereof",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SAVE THAT:",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Conditions 8(3) 15(2) and (3) and 21(2) and (3) thereof shall not apply and in Condition 6(3) the words \"beneficial occupation\" shall be deleted and the words \"actual occupation\" substituted therefor",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.12 This Agreement and the benefit and burden thereof are non-assignable and the Vendor shall not be liable to convey assign or transfer the Property the subject of this Agreement to any person firm or company other than the Purchaser",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.13 If the deposit paid on exchange of Contracts shall be less than Ten per centum (10%) then notwithstanding the payment of that lesser amount the balance of the Ten per centum (10%) shall at all times remain due and owing to the Vendor and in the event of rescission or failure to complete through no fault of the Vendor such balance shall be the liability of the Purchaser to pay to the Vendor",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.14 In this Agreement",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.14.1 The masculine gender shall include the feminine and the singular number the plural and vice versa and person includes firm company or corporation",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GR963240.558 5 RULE 16 007 Page 6 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011220",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "GR963240.558",
+      "RULE 16 007",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011220"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document related to a property sale agreement. It contains various clauses and conditions related to the sale. The document is printed and does not contain any handwritten text or stamps."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011221.json

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9 of 9",
+    "document_number": "703-1",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "court document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 9\n2.14.2 If the Vendor or the Purchaser comprises more than one person the expression in question shall mean all of those persons and any one or more of them and all the obligations of the Vendor or the Purchaser (as the case may be) express or implied shall be joint and several obligations\nAS WITNESS the hands of the parties hereto on the date first before written\nSIGNED....................\nGR962240.658 RULE 16_007 Page 7 of 7 DOJ-OGR-00011221",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-1 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 9",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "2.14.2 If the Vendor or the Purchaser comprises more than one person the expression in question shall mean all of those persons and any one or more of them and all the obligations of the Vendor or the Purchaser (as the case may be) express or implied shall be joint and several obligations",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "AS WITNESS the hands of the parties hereto on the date first before written",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SIGNED....................",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "other",
+      "content": "[black box covering signature]",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GR962240.658",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "RULE 16_007 Page 7 of 7",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011221",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-1",
+      "GR962240.658",
+      "RULE 16_007",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011221"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a redacted signature. The footer contains multiple reference numbers and a rule citation."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011222.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "1",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "07/12/22",
+    "document_type": "Exhibit",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 11 Exhibit B DOJ-OGR-00011222",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 1 of 11",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "Exhibit B",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011222",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DOJ"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011222"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a clear header and footer. The content is mostly blank except for the title 'Exhibit B' and a reference number at the bottom."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011223.json

@@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "2",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK SHELDON BARR and THOMAS GARDNER, Plaintiffs, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK and 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC, Defendants, INDEX NO.: 159225/2010 535 Fifth Avenue New York, New York April 9, 2019 10:07 a.m. EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL of the Defendant, 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC, by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, in the above-entitled action, held at the above time and place, taken before a Notary Public of the State of New York, pursuant to Order and Stipulations between Counsel. DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF NEW YORK",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "SHELDON BARR and THOMAS GARDNER, Plaintiffs, -against- CITY OF NEW YORK and 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC, Defendants,",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "INDEX NO.: 159225/2010",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "535 Fifth Avenue New York, New York April 9, 2019 10:07 a.m.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "EXAMINATION BEFORE TRIAL of the Defendant, 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC, by GHISLAINE MAXWELL, in the above-entitled action, held at the above time and place, taken before a Notary Public of the State of New York, pursuant to Order and Stipulations between Counsel.",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "SHELDON BARR",
+      "THOMAS GARDNER",
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "CITY OF NEW YORK",
+      "116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC",
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting",
+      "Lexitas Company"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "NEW YORK",
+      "Fifth Avenue"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 9, 2019",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "03/05/2020"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159225/2010",
+      "703-2",
+      "1.20-CI-00330-PAE",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011223"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The document is a deposition transcript."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011224.json

@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "3",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020 April 9, 2019 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH FALLEK 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 One Battery Park Plaza, 32nd Floor 6 New York, New York 10004 7 BY: LARRY FALLEK, ESQ. 8 CUOMO, LLC. 9 Attorney for Defendant 10 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC. 11 200 Old Country Road, Suite 2 South 12 Mineola, New York 11501 13 BY: MATTHEW CUOMO, ESQ. 14 FILE NO.: AIGPRIV 17007 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 DOJ-OGR-00011224",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "stamp",
+      "content": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 153 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 3 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "April 9, 2019 1 2 APPEARANCES: 3 THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH FALLEK 4 Attorney for Plaintiffs 5 One Battery Park Plaza, 32nd Floor 6 New York, New York 10004 7 BY: LARRY FALLEK, ESQ. 8 CUOMO, LLC. 9 Attorney for Defendant 10 116 EAST 65TH STREET, LLC. 11 200 Old Country Road, Suite 2 South 12 Mineola, New York 11501 13 BY: MATTHEW CUOMO, ESQ. 14 FILE NO.: AIGPRIV 17007 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25",
+      "position": "middle"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011224",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Joseph Fallek",
+      "Larry Fallek",
+      "Matthew Cuomo"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "THE LAW OFFICE OF JOSEPH FALLEK",
+      "CUOMO, LLC.",
+      "Lexitas",
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "Mineola"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 9, 2019",
+      "03/05/2020",
+      "07/12/22"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159224/2016",
+      "1:20-cv-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "153",
+      "AIGPRIV 17007",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011224"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating it was filed with the New York County Clerk on March 5, 2020. The document is a transcript or record of appearances in a court case."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011225.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "4",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Stipulations",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020 April 9, 2019 3 1 2 STIPULATIONS 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that: All rights provided by the C.P.L.R., including the right to object to any question, except as to form, or to move to strike any testimony at this(these) examinations(s), are reserved, and, in addition, the failure to object to any question or to move to strike any testimony at this(these) examination(s) shall not be a bar or waiver to make such motion at, and is reserved for the trial of this action; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that this(these) examinations(s) may be sworn to by the witness(es) being examined, before a Notary Public other than the Notary Public before whom this(these) examination(s) was(were) begun; but the failure to do so, or to return the original of this(these) examinations(s) to counsel, shall not be deemed a waiver of the rights provided by DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 DOJ-OGR-00011225",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 4 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "April 9, 2019",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "3 1 2 STIPULATIONS 3 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that: All rights provided by the C.P.L.R., including the right to object to any question, except as to form, or to move to strike any testimony at this(these) examinations(s), are reserved, and, in addition, the failure to object to any question or to move to strike any testimony at this(these) examination(s) shall not be a bar or waiver to make such motion at, and is reserved for the trial of this action; IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that this(these) examinations(s) may be sworn to by the witness(es) being examined, before a Notary Public other than the Notary Public before whom this(these) examination(s) was(were) begun; but the failure to do so, or to return the original of this(these) examinations(s) to counsel, shall not be deemed a waiver of the rights provided by",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011225",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting",
+      "Lexitas Company"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "03/05/2020",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "April 9, 2019"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159224/2016",
+      "1:20-cv-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "703",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011225"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a stamp indicating it was filed with the New York County Clerk on March 5, 2020. The document is a stipulation agreement between counsel for the respective parties. The footer contains information about the court reporting company and a reference number."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011226.json

@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "5",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": true,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703-2 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020 April 9, 2019 4 1 2 STIPULATIONS (Cont'd) 3 Rules 3116 and 3117 of the C.P.L.R., and shall be controlled thereby; 4 5 6 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that this (these) examinations(s) may be utilized for all purposes as provided by the C.P.L.R; 7 8 9 10 11 12 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that the filing and certification of the original of this (these) examination(s) shall be and the same hereby are waived; 13 14 15 16 17 18 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that a copy of the within examination(s) shall be furnished to counsel representing the witness(es) testifying, without charge. 19 20 21 22 23 24 IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties 25 DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 DOJ-OGR-00011226",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "handwritten",
+      "content": "Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 5 of 11",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703-2 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "April 9, 2019",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "STIPULATIONS (Cont'd) Rules 3116 and 3117 of the C.P.L.R., and shall be controlled thereby;",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that this (these) examinations(s) may be utilized for all purposes as provided by the C.P.L.R;",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that the filing and certification of the original of this (these) examination(s) shall be and the same hereby are waived;",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties hereto, that a copy of the within examination(s) shall be furnished to counsel representing the witness(es) testifying, without charge.",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between(among) counsel for the respective parties",
+      "position": "body"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011226",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Lexitas",
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "03/05/2020",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "April 9, 2019"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159224/2016",
+      "1:20-cv-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011226"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with stipulations between parties. It is a printed document with some handwritten annotations. The document is in good condition, with clear text and no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011227.json

@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "6",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Document",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 613 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020 April 9, 2019 1 5 2 STIPULATIONS(Cont'd) 3 hereto, that all rights provided by the C.P.L.R., 4 and Part 221 of the Uniform Rules for the Conduct of 5 Depositions, including the right to object to any 6 question, except as to form, or to move to strike 7 any testimony at this examination is reserved; and 8 in addition, the failure to object to any question 9 or to move to strike any testimony at this 10 examination shall not be a bar or waiver to make 11 such motion at, and is reserved to, the trial of 12 this action. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 DOJ-OGR-00011227",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 613 Case 1:20-cv-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 6 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "April 9, 2019",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 5 2 STIPULATIONS(Cont'd) 3 hereto, that all rights provided by the C.P.L.R., 4 and Part 221 of the Uniform Rules for the Conduct of 5 Depositions, including the right to object to any 6 question, except as to form, or to move to strike 7 any testimony at this examination is reserved; and 8 in addition, the failure to object to any question 9 or to move to strike any testimony at this 10 examination shall not be a bar or waiver to make 11 such motion at, and is reserved to, the trial of 12 this action. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011227",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [],
+    "organizations": [
+      "Lexitas",
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "03/05/2020",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "April 9, 2019"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159224/2016",
+      "1:20-cv-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "613",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011227"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or deposition. It contains legal terminology and references to specific court rules and procedures. The presence of a court reporting company's information at the bottom suggests it was produced by a professional court reporting service."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011228.json

@@ -0,0 +1,58 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "7",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nG H I S L A I N E M A X W E L L, called as a witness, having been first duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified as follows:\nEXAMINATION BY\nMR. FALLEK:\nQ. Please state your name for the record.\nA. Ghislaine Maxwell.\nQ. Please state your address for the record.\nA. 44 Kinnerton Street, London, England SW183X.\nMR. FALLEK: Good morning, Ms. Maxwell. My name is Larry Fallek. I represent the plaintiffs in this action, Sheldon Barr and Thomas Gardner.\nI will be asking you a series of questions about an accident that occurred back on September 9, 2015. Many of the questions are going to involve your ownership. When I say, \"your ownership,\" I am referring to the ownership of 116 East 65th Street in Manhattan.\nTHE WITNESS: Okay.\nMR. FALLEK: Before we start I have a few",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "G H I S L A I N E M A X W E L L, called as a witness, having been first duly sworn by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was examined and testified as follows:\nEXAMINATION BY\nMR. FALLEK:\nQ. Please state your name for the record.\nA. Ghislaine Maxwell.\nQ. Please state your address for the record.\nA. 44 Kinnerton Street, London, England SW183X.\nMR. FALLEK: Good morning, Ms. Maxwell. My name is Larry Fallek. I represent the plaintiffs in this action, Sheldon Barr and Thomas Gardner.\nI will be asking you a series of questions about an accident that occurred back on September 9, 2015. Many of the questions are going to involve your ownership. When I say, \"your ownership,\" I am referring to the ownership of 116 East 65th Street in Manhattan.\nTHE WITNESS: Okay.\nMR. FALLEK: Before we start I have a few",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
+      "Larry Fallek",
+      "Sheldon Barr",
+      "Thomas Gardner"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting",
+      "Lexitas Company"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "London",
+      "England",
+      "Manhattan",
+      "116 East 65th Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 9, 2019",
+      "September 9, 2015"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "Document 703-2",
+      "INDEX NO. 159224/2016",
+      "NYSCEF DOC. NO. 113"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript of Ghislaine Maxwell's testimony. The text is clear and legible, with no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011229.json

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "8",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": false
+  },
+  "full_text": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nbasic rules I want to discuss with you. Please make all your responses verbally. The Court Reporter can't take down a shake or nod of the head. Like you are doing right now.\nTHE WITNESS: Of course.\nMR. FALLEK: Please say yes or no.\nTHE WITNESS: Yes.\nMR. FALLEK: And try not to shrug your shoulders or anything like that. Just make all your response verbally.\nTHE WITNESS: I shall.\nMR. FALLEK: Please let me finish my entire question before you give an answer. The Court Reporter cannot take us both down speaking at the same time.\nQ. Is that agreeable?\nA. Yes.\nMR. FALLEK: It's important that you stop me if you don't understand a question. If you do give an answer, I will assume that you understand my question.\nQ. Is that understood?\nA. Yes.\nQ. The address that you just gave the Court\nDEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "GHISLAINE MAXWELL\nbasic rules I want to discuss with you. Please make all your responses verbally. The Court Reporter can't take down a shake or nod of the head. Like you are doing right now.\nTHE WITNESS: Of course.\nMR. FALLEK: Please say yes or no.\nTHE WITNESS: Yes.\nMR. FALLEK: And try not to shrug your shoulders or anything like that. Just make all your response verbally.\nTHE WITNESS: I shall.\nMR. FALLEK: Please let me finish my entire question before you give an answer. The Court Reporter cannot take us both down speaking at the same time.\nQ. Is that agreeable?\nA. Yes.\nMR. FALLEK: It's important that you stop me if you don't understand a question. If you do give an answer, I will assume that you understand my question.\nQ. Is that understood?\nA. Yes.\nQ. The address that you just gave the Court",
+      "position": "top"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "bottom"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL",
+      "MR. FALLEK"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting",
+      "Lexitas Company"
+    ],
+    "locations": [],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 9, 2019"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "159224/2016",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011229"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
+}

results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011230.json

@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+{
+  "document_metadata": {
+    "page_number": "9",
+    "document_number": "703-2",
+    "date": "April 9, 2019",
+    "document_type": "Court Transcript",
+    "has_handwriting": false,
+    "has_stamps": true
+  },
+  "full_text": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020 April 9, 2019 1 GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 Reporter, how long have you lived there? 3 A. '92, '93. 4 Q. Is that your primary residence at this time? 5 A. No. It's just a home that I have. 6 Q. How many homes do you own back in September 7 of 2015? 8 A. Two. 9 Q. Where are those homes? 10 A. 116 East 65th Street and the one in London. 11 Q. When you say, \"the one in London,\" you are 12 referring to the address that you just gave? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Is that a private home? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is that home owned by you individually or 17 some other form? 18 A. It's owned by me. 19 Q. Is your name on the deed to that property 20 or the title of the property? 21 A. It was back then. I kind of -- it was up 22 until recently. I don't know. I can't remember 23 what it is now, if I changed it or not. 24 Q. Back in September of 2015, did you or any 25 DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166 DOJ-OGR-00011230",
+  "text_blocks": [
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/05/2020 12:59 PM INDEX NO. 159224/2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 703 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 703-2 Filed 07/12/22 Page 9 of 11 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/05/2020",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "April 9, 2019",
+      "position": "header"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "1 GHISLAINE MAXWELL 2 Reporter, how long have you lived there? 3 A. '92, '93. 4 Q. Is that your primary residence at this time? 5 A. No. It's just a home that I have. 6 Q. How many homes do you own back in September 7 of 2015? 8 A. Two. 9 Q. Where are those homes? 10 A. 116 East 65th Street and the one in London. 11 Q. When you say, \"the one in London,\" you are 12 referring to the address that you just gave? 13 A. Yes. 14 Q. Is that a private home? 15 A. Yes. 16 Q. Is that home owned by you individually or 17 some other form? 18 A. It's owned by me. 19 Q. Is your name on the deed to that property 20 or the title of the property? 21 A. It was back then. I kind of -- it was up 22 until recently. I don't know. I can't remember 23 what it is now, if I changed it or not. 24 Q. Back in September of 2015, did you or any",
+      "position": "main"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DEITZ Court Reporting... A Lexitas Company 800-678-0166",
+      "position": "footer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "printed",
+      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00011230",
+      "position": "footer"
+    }
+  ],
+  "entities": {
+    "people": [
+      "GHISLAINE MAXWELL"
+    ],
+    "organizations": [
+      "DEITZ Court Reporting",
+      "Lexitas Company"
+    ],
+    "locations": [
+      "New York",
+      "London",
+      "116 East 65th Street"
+    ],
+    "dates": [
+      "April 9, 2019",
+      "September 2015",
+      "03/05/2020",
+      "07/12/22",
+      "'92",
+      "'93"
+    ],
+    "reference_numbers": [
+      "159224/2016",
+      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
+      "703-2",
+      "DOJ-OGR-00011230"
+    ]
+  },
+  "additional_notes": "The document is a court transcript with a clear and legible format. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting. The document contains stamps and annotations from the court clerk."
+}