mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001667.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "4",
    "document_number": "33",
    "date": "July 28, 2020",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 7\nThe Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 28, 2020\nPage 4\n\nMoreover, the defendant is able, at any time, to apply to the Court for a modification of the protective order should she be able to identify a particularized need to publicly name victims who have not yet identified themselves on the record in this case—as opposed to redacting their names from court filings, or referring to them in an anonymized fashion. As noted, to date, defense counsel has declined to identify to the Court or to the Government any example of why doing so would be necessary or helpful to the defense, or even under what circumstances the defense might want to do so.\n\nThe defendant’s proposal is also extraordinarily broad, and without any temporal or subject matter limitation as to the phrase “public fora.” Adopting the defendant’s proposal would mean that any individual who has ever self-identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell publicly in any capacity would be subject to public identification by the defendant and her counsel in connection with this case. This would include, as hypothetical examples, someone who spoke to a journalist for a local story in 1997, or posted on a MySpace page followed by a handful of friends in 2005, or made a statement on a small podcast in 2009, or posted on Twitter to a handful of followers in 2013. But none of these examples of ventures into the “public fora” can possibly be construed as efforts by hypothetical victims to consent or choose “to self-identify,” Def. Ltr. at 3, in a future criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell subject to extraordinary public attention and scrutiny.\n\nAdditionally, while some individuals have identified themselves as victims without providing any details or additional information about their abuse, the defense contemplates no limitation of publicly associating those individuals with the details of their abuse in public defense statements or filings. In essence, the defendant’s proposal seeks authorization to drag into the public glare any victim who has ever made any type of public statement of victimization—no matter how long ago or how brief—without that victim’s knowing consent and without any substantive justification. That is particularly troubling given that the Government expects to make productions of discovery and 3500 materials well surpassing its obligations. Those productions will necessarily include the identities of individuals whom the Government does not expect to call as witnesses, and whose accounts—much less identities—will have no bearing on this case. But the defendant’s proposal would allow her and her counsel to publicly name them in any public statement or filing at their sole discretion. This is plainly unnecessary for any investigative steps or trial preparation, would be grossly inappropriate and unfair, and would be inconsistent with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.\n\nConversely, the Government’s submission proposes that the defendant and her counsel not be precluded from discussing publicly individuals who identify themselves on the record in this criminal prosecution, because any such individuals will have made a conscious and informed choice to be associated publicly with this case. See Government Proposed Order ¶¶ 5, 6, 8. The identity of any other individuals should be protected from public broadcast by the defendant and her counsel.\n\nThe defendant argues that her proposed language is “nearly identical in all material respects” to the protective order entered in United States v. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (Dkt. 38). Def. Ltr. at 3. In the first instance, that is false. The protective order in the Epstein case included",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 33 Filed 07/28/20 Page 4 of 7",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The Honorable Alison J. Nathan\nJuly 28, 2020\nPage 4",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Moreover, the defendant is able, at any time, to apply to the Court for a modification of the protective order should she be able to identify a particularized need to publicly name victims who have not yet identified themselves on the record in this case—as opposed to redacting their names from court filings, or referring to them in an anonymized fashion. As noted, to date, defense counsel has declined to identify to the Court or to the Government any example of why doing so would be necessary or helpful to the defense, or even under what circumstances the defense might want to do so.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant’s proposal is also extraordinarily broad, and without any temporal or subject matter limitation as to the phrase “public fora.” Adopting the defendant’s proposal would mean that any individual who has ever self-identified as a victim of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell publicly in any capacity would be subject to public identification by the defendant and her counsel in connection with this case. This would include, as hypothetical examples, someone who spoke to a journalist for a local story in 1997, or posted on a MySpace page followed by a handful of friends in 2005, or made a statement on a small podcast in 2009, or posted on Twitter to a handful of followers in 2013. But none of these examples of ventures into the “public fora” can possibly be construed as efforts by hypothetical victims to consent or choose “to self-identify,” Def. Ltr. at 3, in a future criminal case against Ghislaine Maxwell subject to extraordinary public attention and scrutiny.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Additionally, while some individuals have identified themselves as victims without providing any details or additional information about their abuse, the defense contemplates no limitation of publicly associating those individuals with the details of their abuse in public defense statements or filings. In essence, the defendant’s proposal seeks authorization to drag into the public glare any victim who has ever made any type of public statement of victimization—no matter how long ago or how brief—without that victim’s knowing consent and without any substantive justification. That is particularly troubling given that the Government expects to make productions of discovery and 3500 materials well surpassing its obligations. Those productions will necessarily include the identities of individuals whom the Government does not expect to call as witnesses, and whose accounts—much less identities—will have no bearing on this case. But the defendant’s proposal would allow her and her counsel to publicly name them in any public statement or filing at their sole discretion. This is plainly unnecessary for any investigative steps or trial preparation, would be grossly inappropriate and unfair, and would be inconsistent with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Conversely, the Government’s submission proposes that the defendant and her counsel not be precluded from discussing publicly individuals who identify themselves on the record in this criminal prosecution, because any such individuals will have made a conscious and informed choice to be associated publicly with this case. See Government Proposed Order ¶¶ 5, 6, 8. The identity of any other individuals should be protected from public broadcast by the defendant and her counsel.",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The defendant argues that her proposed language is “nearly identical in all material respects” to the protective order entered in United States v. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (Dkt. 38). Def. Ltr. at 3. In the first instance, that is false. The protective order in the Epstein case included",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001667",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Alison J. Nathan",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Ghislaine Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court",
      "Government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "July 28, 2020",
      "1997",
      "2005",
      "2009",
      "2013"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 33",
      "United States v. Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) (Dkt. 38)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The text discusses the defendant's proposal to publicly name victims and the government's opposition to it. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}