mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005179.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "338",
    "date": "10/12/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": true
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1of 2\nRECEIVED\nSDNY PRO SE OFFICE\n2021 SEP 29 PM 1:13\nUnited States District Court\nFor The Southern District of NY\nRegarding :\nUnited States v. Ghislaine Maxwell\n2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73882 (S.D.N.Y. April 2021)\nmotion To Intervene\nNow comes David A. Dichl who seeks leave to permissively intervene in the above styled cause per Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). Dichl seeks to intervene because he has a claim or defense that shares with the main action of the Maxwell case a common question of law or fact. Without participation in the Maxwell case as an intervenor, Dichl's interests in a seperate case may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded. Separately the Interests of Ghislaine Maxwell is not being adequately represented with regard to the statute of limitations argument presented in the above styled cause.\nThe motion to intervene is DENIED.\nSO ORDERED.\nAlison J. Nathan 10/12/21\nRECEIVED\nSEP 29 2021\nALISON J. NATHAN\nU.S. DISTRICT JUDGE\nS.D.N.Y.\nDOJ-OGR-00005179",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 1of 2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "RECEIVED\nSDNY PRO SE OFFICE\n2021 SEP 29 PM 1:13",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "United States District Court\nFor The Southern District of NY",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Regarding :\nUnited States v. Ghislaine Maxwell\n2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73882 (S.D.N.Y. April 2021)\nmotion To Intervene\nNow comes David A. Dichl who seeks leave to permissively intervene in the above styled cause per Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1). Dichl seeks to intervene because he has a claim or defense that shares with the main action of the Maxwell case a common question of law or fact. Without participation in the Maxwell case as an intervenor, Dichl's interests in a seperate case may as a practical matter be impaired or impeded. Separately the Interests of Ghislaine Maxwell is not being adequately represented with regard to the statute of limitations argument presented in the above styled cause.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The motion to intervene is DENIED.\nSO ORDERED.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Alison J. Nathan 10/12/21",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "stamp",
      "content": "RECEIVED\nSEP 29 2021\nALISON J. NATHAN\nU.S. DISTRICT JUDGE\nS.D.N.Y.",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005179",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "David A. Dichl",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell",
      "Alison J. Nathan"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court",
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of NY"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/12/21",
      "April 2021",
      "SEP 29 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 338",
      "2021 U.S. Dist. Lexis 73882",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005179"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with handwritten notes and stamped received dates. The quality is generally clear, but some handwritten text may be difficult to read in certain areas."
}