mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00019395.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "2",
    "document_number": "54",
    "date": "09/23/2020",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 20-3061, Document 54, 09/23/2020, 2937091, Page2 of 6\nThe government and Ms. Giuffre insist this case and the criminal case are unrelated. But that's not so.\nThe criminal case alleges that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in the civil case. Two of the six counts are expressly based on the civil case.\nMoreover, _______________________\n_______________________\n_______________________\nIt's fanciful to say the two cases aren't related.\nThe government says it \"is not a party to the civil suit\" (true), that it \"has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit\" (also true), that it \"has had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska's order\" (true again), and that it has no \"legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case\" (true and extraordinarily revealing). Doc. 113, ¶ 26.\nThe government has not intervened in the civil case and it does not have an interest in the relief Ms. Maxwell seeks (keeping the deposition material sealed) because the government wants to argue that its violation of Martindell was harmless as soon as the April 2016 deposition transcript is released. After all, if the government were being consistent, it would have moved to intervene in the civil\n2\nDOJ-OGR-00019395",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 20-3061, Document 54, 09/23/2020, 2937091, Page2 of 6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government and Ms. Giuffre insist this case and the criminal case are unrelated. But that's not so.\nThe criminal case alleges that Ms. Maxwell committed perjury in the civil case. Two of the six counts are expressly based on the civil case.\nMoreover, _______________________\n_______________________\n_______________________\nIt's fanciful to say the two cases aren't related.\nThe government says it \"is not a party to the civil suit\" (true), that it \"has never intervened or appeared in the civil suit\" (also true), that it \"has had no role in the litigation that resulted in Judge Preska's order\" (true again), and that it has no \"legal interest in the relief Maxwell seeks in the civil case\" (true and extraordinarily revealing). Doc. 113, ¶ 26.\nThe government has not intervened in the civil case and it does not have an interest in the relief Ms. Maxwell seeks (keeping the deposition material sealed) because the government wants to argue that its violation of Martindell was harmless as soon as the April 2016 deposition transcript is released. After all, if the government were being consistent, it would have moved to intervene in the civil",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00019395",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Giuffre",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Judge Preska"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "09/23/2020",
      "April 2016"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 20-3061",
      "Document 54",
      "2937091",
      "Doc. 113",
      "DOJ-OGR-00019395"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with redactions. The text is mostly printed, with some italicized text. There are no visible stamps or handwritten annotations."
}