mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010287.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "647",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 21 of 24\novert acts alleged in Count Five could easily have been alleged in Count Three because they were in furtherance of the same conspiracy. Hence, the differing overt acts do not indicate different conspiracies. See Calderone, 982 F.2d at 48 (finding two conspiracies were multiplicitous even though twenty-one overt acts listed in the second conspiracy were not listed in the first, because they were “all in furtherance of the broader conspiracy alleged in the first”).\n\nD. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence\n\nFinally, the government argues that Counts Three and Five were different conspiracies because they were “fundamentally independent schemes, with different objectives and modes of operation.” (Opp. at 32). In doing so, the government conveniently ignores the argument it made to the jury at trial – namely, that Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer were all victims of the same criminal plan to sexually exploit underaged girls, which Epstein and Ms. Maxwell carried out using the same methods throughout the entire course of the conspiracy. (Tr. 2848) (“[Maxwell] ran the same playbook over and over and over again as she exploited young girls. The similarities between what happened to Jane and Annie and Carolyn and Kate are incredibly powerful evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”).\n\nThe government attempts to side-step this obvious inconsistency by arguing that the conspiracy charged in Count Three involved “groom[ing] [victims] to travel to Epstein’s properties for sexual abuse,” whereas Count Five involved “paying victims for so-called ‘massage appointments,’ where they were sexually exploited.” (Opp. at 32). But “grooming” and travel were not exclusive to Count Three. Carolyn testified about being progressively introduced to more serious sexual situations, which was a form of “grooming. (Tr. 1521-23, 1537). She also testified that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell asked her to travel to his island. (Tr. 1534-35). Similarly, payment and massages were not exclusive to Count Five. Jane testified\n\n17\n\nDOJ-OGR-00010287",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 21 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "overt acts alleged in Count Five could easily have been alleged in Count Three because they were in furtherance of the same conspiracy. Hence, the differing overt acts do not indicate different conspiracies. See Calderone, 982 F.2d at 48 (finding two conspiracies were multiplicitous even though twenty-one overt acts listed in the second conspiracy were not listed in the first, because they were “all in furtherance of the broader conspiracy alleged in the first”).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "D. Similarity of Operation, Common Objectives, and Degree of Interdependence",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the government argues that Counts Three and Five were different conspiracies because they were “fundamentally independent schemes, with different objectives and modes of operation.” (Opp. at 32). In doing so, the government conveniently ignores the argument it made to the jury at trial – namely, that Jane, Kate, Carolyn, and Annie Farmer were all victims of the same criminal plan to sexually exploit underaged girls, which Epstein and Ms. Maxwell carried out using the same methods throughout the entire course of the conspiracy. (Tr. 2848) (“[Maxwell] ran the same playbook over and over and over again as she exploited young girls. The similarities between what happened to Jane and Annie and Carolyn and Kate are incredibly powerful evidence of the defendant’s guilt.”).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government attempts to side-step this obvious inconsistency by arguing that the conspiracy charged in Count Three involved “groom[ing] [victims] to travel to Epstein’s properties for sexual abuse,” whereas Count Five involved “paying victims for so-called ‘massage appointments,’ where they were sexually exploited.” (Opp. at 32). But “grooming” and travel were not exclusive to Count Three. Carolyn testified about being progressively introduced to more serious sexual situations, which was a form of “grooming. (Tr. 1521-23, 1537). She also testified that Epstein and Ms. Maxwell asked her to travel to his island. (Tr. 1534-35). Similarly, payment and massages were not exclusive to Count Five. Jane testified",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010287",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jane",
      "Kate",
      "Carolyn",
      "Annie Farmer",
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "647",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010287"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the government's argument regarding the similarity of operation and common objectives between Counts Three and Five of the indictment. The document includes references to trial transcripts and other court documents."
}