Home Explore Help
Sign In
github-mirrors
/
mirror-epstein-docs
1
0
Fork 0
Files Issues 0 Pull Requests 0 Wiki
Tree: 017ff274cb
Branches Tags
mirror-epstein-...
/
results
/
IMAGES008
/
DOJ-OGR-00020405.json

DOJ-OGR-00020405.json 11 KB
History Raw

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152535455565758596061626364656667686970717273747576777879808182838485868788 
  1. {
    2. 

  2.   "document_metadata": {
    3. 

  3.     "page_number": "19 of 91",
    4. 

  4.     "document_number": "1-2",
    5. 

  5.     "date": "07/08/2022",
    6. 

  6.     "document_type": "Court Document",
    7. 

  7.     "has_handwriting": false,
    8. 

  8.     "has_stamps": false
    9. 

  9.   },
    10. 

  10.   "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 1-2, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page19 of 91\nmaterials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo II\"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions are \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,\" thereby qualifying as a \"judicial document\" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (lnl)\n12/23/2020 102 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)\n12/23/2020 103 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)\n12/28/2020 104 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt. No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference tothe Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)\n12/30/2020 105 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)\n12/30/2020 106 OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)\nDOJ-OGR-00020405",
    11. 

  11.   "text_blocks": [
    12. 

  12.     {
    13. 

  13.       "type": "printed",
    14. 

  14.       "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 1-2, 07/08/2022, 3344417, Page19 of 91",
    15. 

  15.       "position": "header"
    16. 

  16.     },
    17. 

  17.     {
    18. 

  18.       "type": "printed",
    19. 

  19.       "content": "materials under seal and proposed narrowly tailored redactions on those materials. The Government did not file any opposition to the Defendant's proposed redactions. The Court will adopt the Defendant's proposed redactions after applying the three-part test articulated by the Second Circuit in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110 (2d Cir. 2006). Under this test, the Court must: (i) determine whether the documents in question are \"judicial documents;\" (ii) assess the weight of the common law presumption of access to the materials; and (iii) balance competing considerations against the presumption of access. Id. at 11920. \"Such countervailing factors include but are not limited to 'the danger of impairing law enforcement or judicial efficiency' and 'the privacy interests of those resisting disclosure.'\" Id. at 120 (quoting United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo II\"), 71 F.3d 1044, 1050 (2d Cir. 1995)). The proposed redactions satisfy this test. The Court finds that the Defendant's submissions are \"relevant to the performance of the judicial function and useful in the judicial process,\" thereby qualifying as a \"judicial document\" for purposes of the first element of the Lugosch test. United States v. Amodeo (\"Amodeo I\"), 44 F.3d 141, 145 (2d Cir. 1995). And the Court also finds that the common law presumption of access attaches. Id. at 146; see also Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 602 (1978). As with the redactions to her renewed motion for bail, the proposed redactions here are narrowly tailored to serve substantial interests, including, most importantly, third parties personal privacy interests. See Under Seal v. Under Seal, 273 F. Supp. 3d 460, 467 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). See also Dkt. No. 95. The Defendant is hereby ORDERED to docket the redacted documents and corresponding exhibits by no later than December 23, 2020. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/23/2020) (lnl)",
    20. 

  20.       "position": "top"
    21. 

  21.     },
    22. 

  22.     {
    23. 

  23.       "type": "printed",
    24. 

  24.       "content": "12/23/2020 102 LETTER by Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from Christian R. Everdell dated December 18, 2020 re: Cover Letter for Reply Memorandum for Renewed Bail Application (Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)",
    25. 

  25.       "position": "middle"
    26. 

  26.     },
    27. 

  27.     {
    28. 

  28.       "type": "printed",
    29. 

  29.       "content": "12/23/2020 103 REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support by Ghislaine Maxwell re: Renewed Motion for Bail. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Everdell, Christian) (Entered: 12/23/2020)",
    30. 

  30.       "position": "middle"
    31. 

  31.     },
    32. 

  32.     {
    33. 

  33.       "type": "printed",
    34. 

  34.       "content": "12/28/2020 104 ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. On December 8, 2020, Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell filed a renewed motion for releaseon bail. Dkt. No. 97. In an Opinion and Order concurrently filed under temporary seal, the Court DENIES the Defendant's motion. In light of the fact that the Opinion includes potentially confidential information that should not be filed on the public docket, the Court will permit the parties 48 hours to propose any redactions to the Courts Opinion and Order and to justify those redactions by reference tothe Second Circuits decision in Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110(2d Cir. 2006). After determining which, if any, portions of the Opinion and Order should be redacted, the Court will file the Opinion and Order on the public docket. As a result, the Court concludes that the Government has met its burden of persuasion that the Defendant poses a flight risk and that pretrial detention continues to be warranted. On or before December 30, 2020, the parties are ORDERED to submit a joint letter indicating whether they propose any redactions and the justification for any such proposal. This resolves Dkt No. 97. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/28/2020)",
    35. 

  35.       "position": "middle"
    36. 

  36.     },
    37. 

  37.     {
    38. 

  38.       "type": "printed",
    39. 

  39.       "content": "12/30/2020 105 LETTER by USA as to Ghislaine Maxwell addressed to Judge Alison J. Nathan from AUSAs Maurene Comey, Alison Moe, and Lara Pomerantz dated December 30, 2020 re: Joint Letter re December 28, 2020 Opinion and Order Document filed by USA. (Comey, Maurene) (Entered: 12/30/2020)",
    40. 

  40.       "position": "middle"
    41. 

  41.     },
    42. 

  42.     {
    43. 

  43.       "type": "printed",
    44. 

  44.       "content": "12/30/2020 106 OPINION AND ORDER as to Ghislaine Maxwell. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell has been indicted by a grand jury on charges of conspiracy to entice minors to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; enticing a minor to travel to engage in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2422 and 2; conspiracy to transport minors to participate in illegal sex acts, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371; and 2; and two charges of perjury, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1623. The Court held a lengthy bail hearing on July 14, 2020. After extensive briefing and argument at the hearing, the Court concluded that the Defendant was a clear risk of flight and that no conditions or combination of conditions would ensure her appearance. Defendant Ghislaine Maxwells renewed motion for release on bail, Dkt. No. 97, is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Alison J. Nathan on 12/28/20)(jw) (Entered: 12/30/2020)",
    45. 

  45.       "position": "middle"
    46. 

  46.     },
    47. 

  47.     {
    48. 

  48.       "type": "printed",
    49. 

  49.       "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020405",
    50. 

  50.       "position": "footer"
    51. 

  51.     }
    52. 

  52.   ],
    53. 

  53.   "entities": {
    54. 

  54.     "people": [
    55. 

  55.       "Ghislaine Maxwell",
    56. 

  56.       "Alison J. Nathan",
    57. 

  57.       "Christian R. Everdell",
    58. 

  58.       "Maurene Comey",
    59. 

  59.       "Alison Moe",
    60. 

  60.       "Lara Pomerantz"
    61. 

  61.     ],
    62. 

  62.     "organizations": [
    63. 

  63.       "USA",
    64. 

  64.       "Second Circuit",
    65. 

  65.       "S.D.N.Y."
    66. 

  66.     ],
    67. 

  67.     "locations": [],
    68. 

  68.     "dates": [
    69. 

  69.       "07/08/2022",
    70. 

  70.       "12/23/2020",
    71. 

  71.       "12/28/2020",
    72. 

  72.       "12/30/2020",
    73. 

  73.       "July 14, 2020",
    74. 

  74.       "December 18, 2020",
    75. 

  75.       "December 8, 2020",
    76. 

  76.       "December 28, 2020"
    77. 

  77.     ],
    78. 

  78.     "reference_numbers": [
    79. 

  79.       "Case 22-1426",
    80. 

  80.       "Document 1-2",
    81. 

  81.       "3344417",
    82. 

  82.       "Dkt. No. 95",
    83. 

  83.       "Dkt. No. 97",
    84. 

  84.       "DOJ-OGR-00020405"
    85. 

  85.     ]
    86. 

  86.   },
    87. 

  87.   "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some formatting indicating a table or list of court documents. There are no visible stamps or handwritten text."
    88. 

  88. }
    89.