mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019427.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "28",
    "document_number": "60",
    "date": "09/24/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page28 of 58\nopportunity to reevaluate her decision in light of this information, Ms. Maxwell may never be able to challenge in the criminal case the government's violation of her rights under Martinell. Likewise, if Judge Preska is asked to rule on a motion to stay the unsealing until the conclusion of the criminal case without knowledge that the sealed materials , Ms. Maxwell will never be able to challenge that decision. A modification of the protective order will not prejudice the government, which has not articulated a persuasive reason why Judge Preska should remain in the dark.\n\nArgument\nI. Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, material information .\nThis appeal is one part of an extraordinary series of events in which six sets of judicial officers are trying to resolve related—sometimes inextricably interrelated—legal questions involving one common party: Ghislaine Maxwell.\nThose six sets of judicial officers are four district judges and two panels of this Court (the panel presiding over Giuffre v. Maxwell and the panel presiding over this interlocutory appeal). Yet because of Ms. Maxwell's legal opponents' tactical choices, no one set\n23\nDOJ-OGR-00019427",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 60, 09/24/2020, 2938278, Page28 of 58",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "opportunity to reevaluate her decision in light of this information, Ms. Maxwell may never be able to challenge in the criminal case the government's violation of her rights under Martinell. Likewise, if Judge Preska is asked to rule on a motion to stay the unsealing until the conclusion of the criminal case without knowledge that the sealed materials , Ms. Maxwell will never be able to challenge that decision. A modification of the protective order will not prejudice the government, which has not articulated a persuasive reason why Judge Preska should remain in the dark.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Argument",
      "position": "heading"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Judge Nathan erred in refusing to modify the protective order for the limited purpose of allowing Ms. Maxwell to share with Judge Preska, under seal, material information .",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "This appeal is one part of an extraordinary series of events in which six sets of judicial officers are trying to resolve related—sometimes inextricably interrelated—legal questions involving one common party: Ghislaine Maxwell.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Those six sets of judicial officers are four district judges and two panels of this Court (the panel presiding over Giuffre v. Maxwell and the panel presiding over this interlocutory appeal). Yet because of Ms. Maxwell's legal opponents' tactical choices, no one set",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "23",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019427",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Nathan",
      "Martinell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/24/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 60",
      "2938278",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019427"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. There are redactions in the text, indicating sensitive or confidential information has been removed."
}