mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00010285.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19",
    "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 19 of 24\nthat the core participants of the conspiracies—Epstein and Ms. Maxwell—were consistent throughout and that Carolyn was a victim of the conspiracies charged in both Count Three and Count Five. (Id.) The addition of Sarah Kellen as a co-conspirator towards the end of the conspiracy does not create multiple conspiracies. See United States v. Reid, 475 F. App'x 385, 387 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[C]hanges in membership do not necessarily convert a single conspiracy into multiple conspiracies, and there is no requirement that the same people be involved throughout the duration of the conspiracy.” (cleaned up)).\nThe government also argues that although the time period of Count Five (2001-2004) was entirely contained within the time period of Count Three (1994-2004), there was no significant temporal overlap because “the gravamen of the offense conduct for Count Three occurred in the 1990s, while the offense conduct charged in Count Five took place in the 2000s.” (Opp. at 31). That is non-sensical. Count Three charges a conspiracy lasting continuously from 1994-2004. Just because three of the witnesses testified about conduct in the 1990s and one of the witnesses testified about conduct in the 2000s, that does not mean that the 1990s conduct was somehow more important or more relevant to Count Three than the 2000s conduct. As charged, the conspiracy spanned the entire time period. Hence, the temporal overlap between Count Three and Count Five was not “minimal,” as the government contends. (Opp. at 31). It was complete. The time period of Count Five was entirely contained within, and overlapped with, the time period of Count Three.\nFinally, the government disingenuously argues that the geographic scope of the two conspiracies did not overlap because Count Three “was focused on travel to New York,” whereas Count Five “largely concerned conduct that took place in Florida.” (Opp. at 31-32). Here, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. The government argued\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00010285",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 647 Filed 03/11/22 Page 19 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "that the core participants of the conspiracies—Epstein and Ms. Maxwell—were consistent throughout and that Carolyn was a victim of the conspiracies charged in both Count Three and Count Five. (Id.) The addition of Sarah Kellen as a co-conspirator towards the end of the conspiracy does not create multiple conspiracies. See United States v. Reid, 475 F. App'x 385, 387 (2d Cir. 2012) (“[C]hanges in membership do not necessarily convert a single conspiracy into multiple conspiracies, and there is no requirement that the same people be involved throughout the duration of the conspiracy.” (cleaned up)).",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government also argues that although the time period of Count Five (2001-2004) was entirely contained within the time period of Count Three (1994-2004), there was no significant temporal overlap because “the gravamen of the offense conduct for Count Three occurred in the 1990s, while the offense conduct charged in Count Five took place in the 2000s.” (Opp. at 31). That is non-sensical. Count Three charges a conspiracy lasting continuously from 1994-2004. Just because three of the witnesses testified about conduct in the 1990s and one of the witnesses testified about conduct in the 2000s, that does not mean that the 1990s conduct was somehow more important or more relevant to Count Three than the 2000s conduct. As charged, the conspiracy spanned the entire time period. Hence, the temporal overlap between Count Three and Count Five was not “minimal,” as the government contends. (Opp. at 31). It was complete. The time period of Count Five was entirely contained within, and overlapped with, the time period of Count Three.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the government disingenuously argues that the geographic scope of the two conspiracies did not overlap because Count Three “was focused on travel to New York,” whereas Count Five “largely concerned conduct that took place in Florida.” (Opp. at 31-32). Here, the government is talking out of both sides of its mouth. The government argued",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00010285",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Carolyn",
      "Sarah Kellen"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "1994",
      "2004",
      "2001",
      "2012",
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 647",
      "DOJ-OGR-00010285",
      "475 F. App'x 385"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case involving Epstein and Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the government's arguments regarding the conspiracies charged in Count Three and Count Five."
}