mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00008953.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "29",
    "document_number": "600",
    "date": "02/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 29 of 37\nthem feel special, giving them gifts or much-needed cash, or promising to help with their futures. Tr. 2850:18-2851:17. The final step was for Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to normalize sexual situations and sexual touching so that it would eventually escalate to more serious sexualized massages. Tr. 2851:18-2852:24.\nMoreover, this common method of operation to recruit and “groom” minors was all in service of the same objective: to sexually abuse underage girls. Although this common scheme violated three different statutes and the incidents of abuse took place in different locations, the government’s theory as presented to the jury was that it was a single criminal agreement between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, not separate independent conspiracies.\n3. Common Overt Acts\nThe Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three alleged identical overt acts, which pertained to each of the four accusers. Ind. ¶¶ 13a-e and 19a-c. Because the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in Count Five did not involve Jane, Kate, or Annie Farmer, that count alleged separate overt acts related solely to Carolyn. Ind. ¶¶ 25a-d. As discussed above, however, Count Five was simply a subset of the larger conspiracy charged in Counts One and Three involving Carolyn and other accusers in Florida and did not represent a separate conspiracy. See discussion supra.\n4. Degree of Interdependence Between the Conspiracies\nThis factor requires the Court to consider the extent to which the success or failure of one alleged conspiracy is independent of a corresponding success or failure by the other. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 671. The conspiracy alleged in Count Three was logically dependent on the success of the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The object of both was to first entice and then transport minors across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. If the conspiracy to entice failed there would, logically, be no one to transport. Similarly, the object of the sex 24\nDOJ-OGR-00008953",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 600 Filed 02/11/22 Page 29 of 37",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "them feel special, giving them gifts or much-needed cash, or promising to help with their futures. Tr. 2850:18-2851:17. The final step was for Epstein and Ms. Maxwell to normalize sexual situations and sexual touching so that it would eventually escalate to more serious sexualized massages. Tr. 2851:18-2852:24.\nMoreover, this common method of operation to recruit and “groom” minors was all in service of the same objective: to sexually abuse underage girls. Although this common scheme violated three different statutes and the incidents of abuse took place in different locations, the government’s theory as presented to the jury was that it was a single criminal agreement between Epstein and Ms. Maxwell, not separate independent conspiracies.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. Common Overt Acts\nThe Mann Act conspiracies charged in Counts One and Three alleged identical overt acts, which pertained to each of the four accusers. Ind. ¶¶ 13a-e and 19a-c. Because the sex trafficking conspiracy charged in Count Five did not involve Jane, Kate, or Annie Farmer, that count alleged separate overt acts related solely to Carolyn. Ind. ¶¶ 25a-d. As discussed above, however, Count Five was simply a subset of the larger conspiracy charged in Counts One and Three involving Carolyn and other accusers in Florida and did not represent a separate conspiracy. See discussion supra.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4. Degree of Interdependence Between the Conspiracies\nThis factor requires the Court to consider the extent to which the success or failure of one alleged conspiracy is independent of a corresponding success or failure by the other. Macchia, 35 F.3d at 671. The conspiracy alleged in Count Three was logically dependent on the success of the conspiracy alleged in Count One. The object of both was to first entice and then transport minors across state lines for the purpose of engaging in illegal sexual activity. If the conspiracy to entice failed there would, logically, be no one to transport. Similarly, the object of the sex",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "24",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00008953",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Carolyn"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "02/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 600",
      "DOJ-OGR-00008953"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the common method of operation used by the defendants to recruit and groom minors, as well as the degree of interdependence between the conspiracies alleged in different counts."
}