mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001588.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "18",
    "date": "07/10/20",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 8 of 26\n\npurpose of protecting herself and those close to her from the crush of media and online attention and its very real harms—those close to her have suffered the loss of jobs, work opportunities, and reputational damage simply for knowing her. The government’s remaining arguments—about Ms. Maxwell’s passports, citizenship, travel and financial means—also fail because they would require that every defendant with multiple citizenship and financial means be denied bail, which is simply not the law. Finally, as discussed below, the government’s position regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense and weight of its evidence, which relates to alleged conduct that is roughly twenty-five years old, is not persuasive and does not alter the bail analysis. (See infra Section II, pages 9 to 21).\n\nProposed Bail Conditions. In light of the above, we propose the following bail conditions, which are consistent with those that courts in this Circuit have imposed in analogous situations: (i) a $5 million personal recognizance bond, co-signed by six financially responsible people, all of whom have strong ties to Ms. Maxwell, and secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth over $3.75 million; (ii) travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; (iii) surrender of all travel documents with no new applications; (iv) strict supervision by Pretrial Services; (v) home confinement at a residence in the Southern District of New York with electronic GPS monitoring; (vi) visitors limited to Ms. Maxwell’s immediate family, close friends and counsel; (vii) travel limited to Court appearances and to counsel’s office, except upon application to Pretrial Services and the government; and (viii) such other terms as the Court may deem appropriate under Section 3142.\n\nThe Bail Reform Act does not discard the presumption of innocence; Ms. Maxwell is entitled to that presumption here, as she is in all aspects of this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j) (“Nothing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of\n\n4\n\nDOJ-OGR-00001588",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 18 Filed 07/10/20 Page 8 of 26",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "purpose of protecting herself and those close to her from the crush of media and online attention and its very real harms—those close to her have suffered the loss of jobs, work opportunities, and reputational damage simply for knowing her. The government’s remaining arguments—about Ms. Maxwell’s passports, citizenship, travel and financial means—also fail because they would require that every defendant with multiple citizenship and financial means be denied bail, which is simply not the law. Finally, as discussed below, the government’s position regarding the nature and circumstances of the offense and weight of its evidence, which relates to alleged conduct that is roughly twenty-five years old, is not persuasive and does not alter the bail analysis. (See infra Section II, pages 9 to 21).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Proposed Bail Conditions. In light of the above, we propose the following bail conditions, which are consistent with those that courts in this Circuit have imposed in analogous situations: (i) a $5 million personal recognizance bond, co-signed by six financially responsible people, all of whom have strong ties to Ms. Maxwell, and secured by real property in the United Kingdom worth over $3.75 million; (ii) travel restricted to the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York; (iii) surrender of all travel documents with no new applications; (iv) strict supervision by Pretrial Services; (v) home confinement at a residence in the Southern District of New York with electronic GPS monitoring; (vi) visitors limited to Ms. Maxwell’s immediate family, close friends and counsel; (vii) travel limited to Court appearances and to counsel’s office, except upon application to Pretrial Services and the government; and (viii) such other terms as the Court may deem appropriate under Section 3142.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Bail Reform Act does not discard the presumption of innocence; Ms. Maxwell is entitled to that presumption here, as she is in all aspects of this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3142(j) (“Nothing in this section [3142] shall be construed as modifying or limiting the presumption of",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001588",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Pretrial Services",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "United Kingdom",
      "New York",
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Eastern Districts of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/10/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 18",
      "18 U.S.C. § 3142(j)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001588"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the bail conditions for Ms. Maxwell. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}