mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003905.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "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 8 of 17\ninvestigating the underlying charged conspiracy); United States v. Cohn, 230 F. Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (perjury during grand jury proceedings into the same transaction as substantive count); United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (severing false statement regarding a personal loan from substantive counts of inducing a consortium of banks to provide credit to companies controlled by defendant).\nThe facts of this case do not fit the supposed well-settled Second Circuit rule, because the Perjury Counts do not involve any allegedly materially false testimonial statements to law enforcement authorities, a grand jury, a petit jury, or a court considering the purportedly criminal acts in question. Nor did the allegedly false statements concern the Mann Act Counts, which are based on allegations of enticing women to travel in interstate commerce for an illegal sexual purpose between 1994 and 1997. Ms. Maxwell's responses to questions about, for example, whether she could give a list of people under the age of 18 who came to Epstein's house or whether she could identify sex toys—which she made in the context of a 2016 defamation claim brought by an unrelated person—do not “concern” the Mann Act Counts.\nThe government contends that the fact that Ms. Maxwell made these statements in the context of a civil deposition, as opposed to a criminal investigation, “is of little moment” because she was supposedly “concerned about the prospect of a criminal investigation at the time of her depositions.” Resp. at 145. That is simply wrong. What Ms. Maxwell, and her lawyers were “concerned about” was the abuse of her deposition testimony by unscrupulous lawyers. As it turns out, her concern was entirely justified.2\n2 See, e.g., https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/804949055/the-new-york-times-the-unreliable-source-and-the-expos-that-missed-the-mark; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/weinstein-boies/545273/.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 8 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "investigating the underlying charged conspiracy); United States v. Cohn, 230 F. Supp. 587 (S.D.N.Y. 1964) (perjury during grand jury proceedings into the same transaction as substantive count); United States v. Harris, 805 F. Supp. 166 (S.D.N.Y. 1992) (severing false statement regarding a personal loan from substantive counts of inducing a consortium of banks to provide credit to companies controlled by defendant).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The facts of this case do not fit the supposed well-settled Second Circuit rule, because the Perjury Counts do not involve any allegedly materially false testimonial statements to law enforcement authorities, a grand jury, a petit jury, or a court considering the purportedly criminal acts in question. Nor did the allegedly false statements concern the Mann Act Counts, which are based on allegations of enticing women to travel in interstate commerce for an illegal sexual purpose between 1994 and 1997. Ms. Maxwell's responses to questions about, for example, whether she could give a list of people under the age of 18 who came to Epstein's house or whether she could identify sex toys—which she made in the context of a 2016 defamation claim brought by an unrelated person—do not “concern” the Mann Act Counts.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government contends that the fact that Ms. Maxwell made these statements in the context of a civil deposition, as opposed to a criminal investigation, “is of little moment” because she was supposedly “concerned about the prospect of a criminal investigation at the time of her depositions.” Resp. at 145. That is simply wrong. What Ms. Maxwell, and her lawyers were “concerned about” was the abuse of her deposition testimony by unscrupulous lawyers. As it turns out, her concern was entirely justified.2",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 See, e.g., https://www.npr.org/2020/03/12/804949055/the-new-york-times-the-unreliable-source-and-the-expos-that-missed-the-mark; https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/weinstein-boies/545273/.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003905",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "NPR",
      "The Atlantic"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "1994",
      "1997",
      "2016",
      "2020",
      "2017"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 224",
      "230 F. Supp. 587",
      "805 F. Supp. 166",
      "Resp. at 145",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003905"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case United States v. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 8 of 17."
}