mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003022.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "88 of 239",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 88 of 239\n\nA. Factual Background\n\nThe defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the \"precise[] design[]\" of having the defendant \"charged with perjury.\" (Def. Mot. 3 at 10). In particular, she claims that Boies Schiller met with the Government in February 2016, urged the Government to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, told the Government what was in its files, and met with the Government again in the summer of 2016 to ask if it would consider charging the defendant with perjury after her two depositions. (Id. at 2, 8).\n\nThat is not so. While a now former Assistant United States Attorney (\"AUSA-1\") met with a lawyer from Boies Schiller and two other attorneys about Epstein in February 2016, that meeting was not focused on the defendant, and AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys. Moreover, that February 2016 meeting pre-dated the depositions that gave rise to the perjury counts in the Indictment, which itself was obtained more than four years thereafter.26 The Indictment was instead the product of an investigation that was not opened until late 2018 and that had nothing to do with a meeting that had taken place nearly three years earlier with an AUSA who played no part in the decision to open the 2018 investigation and similarly played no part in the 2018 investigation itself.\n\n1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell\n\nIn or about September 2015, Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt.\n\n26 While, as discussed herein, the Government has uncovered evidence of a phone call from one of the attorneys, Stan Pottinger, to AUSA-1 in early May 2016, AUSA-1 has no specific memory of that call, nor did AUSA-1 provide any notes or records of that call to the team working on the instant investigation.\n\n61\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003022",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 88 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Factual Background\n\nThe defendant's motion is, at its core, premised on a false factual narrative. The defendant alleges, based on a New York Daily News article, that Boies Schiller and the Government colluded starting in at least early 2016 with the \"precise[] design[]\" of having the defendant \"charged with perjury.\" (Def. Mot. 3 at 10). In particular, she claims that Boies Schiller met with the Government in February 2016, urged the Government to open an investigation of Epstein and Maxwell, told the Government what was in its files, and met with the Government again in the summer of 2016 to ask if it would consider charging the defendant with perjury after her two depositions. (Id. at 2, 8).\n\nThat is not so. While a now former Assistant United States Attorney (\"AUSA-1\") met with a lawyer from Boies Schiller and two other attorneys about Epstein in February 2016, that meeting was not focused on the defendant, and AUSA-1 did not participate in a second meeting with those attorneys. Moreover, that February 2016 meeting pre-dated the depositions that gave rise to the perjury counts in the Indictment, which itself was obtained more than four years thereafter.26 The Indictment was instead the product of an investigation that was not opened until late 2018 and that had nothing to do with a meeting that had taken place nearly three years earlier with an AUSA who played no part in the decision to open the 2018 investigation and similarly played no part in the 2018 investigation itself.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. The Civil Lawsuit against Maxwell\n\nIn or about September 2015, Giuffre, represented by Boies Schiller, filed a civil defamation lawsuit against Maxwell in the Southern District of New York. (See 15 Civ. 7433 (LAP), Dkt.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "26 While, as discussed herein, the Government has uncovered evidence of a phone call from one of the attorneys, Stan Pottinger, to AUSA-1 in early May 2016, AUSA-1 has no specific memory of that call, nor did AUSA-1 provide any notes or records of that call to the team working on the instant investigation.",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "61",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003022",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "AUSA-1",
      "Stan Pottinger"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Boies Schiller",
      "Government",
      "New York Daily News"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Southern District of New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2015",
      "2016",
      "2018",
      "04/16/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "15 Civ. 7433 (LAP)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with a formal tone. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}