mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019659.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "13",
    "document_number": "94",
    "date": "10/08/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page13 of 23\ndoposition material is prematurely released, as the government so clearly desires, Ms. Maxwell's ability to make the Martindell argument will be compromised.3\nThird, Ms. Maxwell intends to move Judge Preska to stay future unsealing pending the outcome of the criminal case. But she cannot fairly make her case to Judge Preska unless Judge Preska knows\nJudge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the unsealing appeal are the only relevant actors who don't know the relevant facts.\nThe government's second contention—that Ms. Maxwell can already share the \"basic facts\" with Judge Preska—misunderstands what Ms. Maxwell seeks to share (under seal and not publicly) and what Judge Nathan's order permits (not very much). According to the government, Ms. Maxwell is free to share the identity of \"Court-1\" and \"Court-2\" and the fact that the Government obtained an order from Court-1 permitting the Recipient to comply with a subpoena for materials\n3 Surely due process does not contemplate a scenario in which Ms. Maxwell is never permitted to challenge. But that's apparently the government's position. Ms. Maxwell did not know of the proceeding before , so she couldn't argue against . Ms. Maxwell did not know when , so she couldn't appeal. And if Judge Preska's unsealing order goes into effect, the government will seek to deny Ms. Maxwell the right to challenge its conduct before Judge Nathan.\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00019659",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 94, 10/08/2020, 2948481, Page13 of 23",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "deposition material is prematurely released, as the government so clearly desires, Ms. Maxwell's ability to make the Martindell argument will be compromised.3\nThird, Ms. Maxwell intends to move Judge Preska to stay future unsealing pending the outcome of the criminal case. But she cannot fairly make her case to Judge Preska unless Judge Preska knows",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Judge Preska and the panel of this Court deciding the unsealing appeal are the only relevant actors who don't know the relevant facts.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government's second contention—that Ms. Maxwell can already share the \"basic facts\" with Judge Preska—misunderstands what Ms. Maxwell seeks to share (under seal and not publicly) and what Judge Nathan's order permits (not very much). According to the government, Ms. Maxwell is free to share the identity of \"Court-1\" and \"Court-2\" and the fact that the Government obtained an order from Court-1 permitting the Recipient to comply with a subpoena for materials",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3 Surely due process does not contemplate a scenario in which Ms. Maxwell is never permitted to challenge. But that's apparently the government's position. Ms. Maxwell did not know of the proceeding before , so she couldn't argue against . Ms. Maxwell did not know when , so she couldn't appeal. And if Judge Preska's unsealing order goes into effect, the government will seek to deny Ms. Maxwell the right to challenge its conduct before Judge Nathan.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019659",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska",
      "Judge Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Government",
      "Court-1",
      "Court-2"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "10/08/2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 94",
      "2948481",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019659"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with some footnotes and a header/footer. The redactions are indicated by black bars."
}