mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00020161.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "1",
    "document_number": "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
    "date": "March 9, 2021",
    "document_type": "Letter",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "U.S Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007\nMarch 9, 2021\nBY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007\nRe: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:\nThe Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's third motion for release on bail, dated February 23, 2021 (the \"Third Bail Motion\" or the \"Motion\"). (Dkt. No. 160). On July 14, 2020, after extensive briefing and a lengthy hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. On December 28, 2020, after the defendant renewed her motion for release on bail (the \"Second Bail Motion\") by essentially restating her prior arguments and presenting a more significant and specific bail package, this Court issued a thorough opinion and again concluded that the defendant \"plainly poses a risk of flight\" and denied the motion for \"substantially the same reasons that the Court denied\" her first motion for release. (Dkt. No. 106 at 1-2 (\"Dec. Op.\")). The defendant appealed this Court's December 2020 decision to the Second Circuit, and that appeal remains pending. Now, the defendant asks the Court yet again to reconsider its decision, and proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the bail package the Court previously considered and rejected. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion should be denied. First, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion—in which she asks this Court to reconsider its December opinion—because the defendant has appealed that December opinion to the Second Circuit. Second, even assuming the Court had jurisdiction to grant this latest bail application, the Court should adhere to its prior rulings because the defendant continues to pose an extreme risk of flight, and the additional bail conditions proposed by the defendant do not justify reversal of the Court's prior findings that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. The defendant's Third Bail Motion should be denied.\nI. Background\nThe Government's December 16, 2020 opposition to the defendant's Second Bail Motion details the background of the initial bail proceedings in this case and is incorporated by reference herein. (See Dkt. No. 100 at 2-6). After this Court denied the defendant's initial application for\nDOJ-OGR-00020161",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "U.S Department of Justice\nUnited States Attorney\nSouthern District of New York\nThe Silvio J. Mollo Building\nOne Saint Andrew's Plaza\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "March 9, 2021",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "BY ECF & ELECTRONIC MAIL\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nUnited States District Court\nSouthern District of New York\nUnited States Courthouse\n40 Foley Square\nNew York, New York 10007",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Re: United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, 20 Cr. 330 (AJN)\nDear Judge Nathan:",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Government respectfully submits this letter in opposition to the defendant's third motion for release on bail, dated February 23, 2021 (the \"Third Bail Motion\" or the \"Motion\"). (Dkt. No. 160). On July 14, 2020, after extensive briefing and a lengthy hearing, this Court concluded that the defendant posed a serious flight risk and that no condition or combination of conditions could ensure her appearance in court. On December 28, 2020, after the defendant renewed her motion for release on bail (the \"Second Bail Motion\") by essentially restating her prior arguments and presenting a more significant and specific bail package, this Court issued a thorough opinion and again concluded that the defendant \"plainly poses a risk of flight\" and denied the motion for \"substantially the same reasons that the Court denied\" her first motion for release. (Dkt. No. 106 at 1-2 (\"Dec. Op.\")). The defendant appealed this Court's December 2020 decision to the Second Circuit, and that appeal remains pending. Now, the defendant asks the Court yet again to reconsider its decision, and proposes two additional bail conditions to supplement the bail package the Court previously considered and rejected. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion should be denied. First, the Court does not have jurisdiction to grant the Third Bail Motion—in which she asks this Court to reconsider its December opinion—because the defendant has appealed that December opinion to the Second Circuit. Second, even assuming the Court had jurisdiction to grant this latest bail application, the Court should adhere to its prior rulings because the defendant continues to pose an extreme risk of flight, and the additional bail conditions proposed by the defendant do not justify reversal of the Court's prior findings that no combination of conditions could ensure her appearance. The defendant's Third Bail Motion should be denied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. Background\nThe Government's December 16, 2020 opposition to the defendant's Second Bail Motion details the background of the initial bail proceedings in this case and is incorporated by reference herein. (See Dkt. No. 100 at 2-6). After this Court denied the defendant's initial application for",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00020161",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S Department of Justice",
      "United States Attorney",
      "United States District Court",
      "Second Circuit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 9, 2021",
      "February 23, 2021",
      "July 14, 2020",
      "December 28, 2020",
      "December 16, 2020",
      "December 2020"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20 Cr. 330 (AJN)",
      "Dkt. No. 160",
      "Dkt. No. 106",
      "Dkt. No. 100",
      "DOJ-OGR-00020161"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a formal letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to the Honorable Alison J. Nathan, regarding the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The letter is typed and contains no handwritten text or stamps."
}