mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003904.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "7",
    "document_number": "224",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 7 of 17\n\nThe government also asserts, without explanation, that the Perjury Counts are of \"similar character\" to the Mann Act Counts. Resp. 141. \"Similar character,\" for purposes of F.R.E. 8(a) \"means nearly corresponding, resembling in many respects or having a general likeness.\" United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980). The alleged perjury in an unrelated defamation case more than 20 years after the fact bears no likeness to allegedly enticing someone to travel for an illegal sexual purpose.\n\nB. The Perjury Charges Do Not \"Concern\" the Mann Act Offenses.\n\nNor do the Perjury Counts \"concern\" the Mann Act Counts as claimed by the government. Resp. 143. The government cites the supposedly \"settled law in this Circuit that joinder of 'underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts' is appropriate 'where . . . the false declarations concern the substantive offenses.'\" Id. (citing United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984)). But it is wrong on both the facts and the law.\n\nThe cases cited by the government involve a distinct fact pattern: the defendant allegedly made a materially false statement that relates directly to the underlying crime and the crime is temporally related to the false statement. The Potamitis case that the government relies upon primarily for this proposition is a good example. In that case, the defendant was charged with making false statements to FBI agents, committing perjury before the grand jury, and obstruction of justice because he lied to the FBI agents and the Grand Jury about the underlying crimes for which he was being investigated and questioned. Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 786-87; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (common plan or scheme between lying on a non-profit's loan application and perjury during grand jury investigation the subsequent year into that same non-profit); United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 at 1190-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (fraud in businesses joined with false swearing to bankruptcy court about operating that same business); United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) (perjury in grand jury\n\n3\nDOJ-OGR-00003904",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 7 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government also asserts, without explanation, that the Perjury Counts are of \"similar character\" to the Mann Act Counts. Resp. 141. \"Similar character,\" for purposes of F.R.E. 8(a) \"means nearly corresponding, resembling in many respects or having a general likeness.\" United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980). The alleged perjury in an unrelated defamation case more than 20 years after the fact bears no likeness to allegedly enticing someone to travel for an illegal sexual purpose.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "B. The Perjury Charges Do Not \"Concern\" the Mann Act Offenses.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Nor do the Perjury Counts \"concern\" the Mann Act Counts as claimed by the government. Resp. 143. The government cites the supposedly \"settled law in this Circuit that joinder of 'underlying substantive crimes with perjury counts' is appropriate 'where . . . the false declarations concern the substantive offenses.'\" Id. (citing United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784, 791 (2d Cir. 1984)). But it is wrong on both the facts and the law.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The cases cited by the government involve a distinct fact pattern: the defendant allegedly made a materially false statement that relates directly to the underlying crime and the crime is temporally related to the false statement. The Potamitis case that the government relies upon primarily for this proposition is a good example. In that case, the defendant was charged with making false statements to FBI agents, committing perjury before the grand jury, and obstruction of justice because he lied to the FBI agents and the Grand Jury about the underlying crimes for which he was being investigated and questioned. Potamitis, 739 F.2d at 786-87; see also United States v. Ruiz, 894 F.2d 501 (2d Cir. 1992) (common plan or scheme between lying on a non-profit's loan application and perjury during grand jury investigation the subsequent year into that same non-profit); United States v. Broccolo, 797 F. Supp. 1185 at 1190-91 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (fraud in businesses joined with false swearing to bankruptcy court about operating that same business); United States v. Sweig, 441 F.2d 114 (2d Cir. 1971) (perjury in grand jury",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003904",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Grand Jury"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "1980",
      "1984",
      "1992",
      "1971"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 224",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003904"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}