mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001250.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "12107-000",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "least $2 million. In addition, the defendant proposes that she retain an additional half a million dollars in liquid assets in an unrestrained account, as well as any future income.2 That figure appears to be in addition to the approximately $1 million in “chattels” the defendant has disclosed among her various assets. See Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. In short, the defendant’s proposal would leave her with ample resources to fund her flight from prosecution.\n\nFurther still, the defendant’s Motion provides only cursory details of the monitorship program she proposes, and it offers no legal precedent to explain what, if any, authority this Court has to establish and oversee such a monitorship. Aside from defense counsel’s assertions, the Motion offers nothing that would enable the Court to meaningfully consider the details of such a monitorship. Among other things, it is unclear from the defendant’s Motion whether such a program would require the defendant’s voluntary compliance with the monitorship, or whether the funds would be placed in a bank account that the defendant could not access. Given that the defendant’s Motion suggests that attorney’s fees could be disbursed without approval, it appears that the defendant’s proposal would provide her latitude to engage in financial transactions, subject only to a review that would require her voluntary compliance.\n\nFinally, although the defendant does not provide any detail about the amount of money she would pay the monitor, presumably the monitor would not undertake this responsibility for free. As a result, the tension between the monitor’s obligation to review the defendant’s finances and the monitor’s employment relationship with the defendant creates a conflict of interest. But at bottom, if the Court determines that the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a flight risk to release.\n\nIn sum, in light of this Court’s determination that the defendant “has not been fully candid about her financial situation,” the Court should reject the defendant’s vague proposal. (Dec. Op. at 2). Nothing in the defendant’s Motion should alter the Court’s determination that the defendant poses a significant risk of flight, and that she has the resources and skills to flee prosecution. The Court should reject the proposed bail conditions.\n\n3. The Defendant’s Pending Pretrial Motions Have Not Diminished the Strength of the Government’s Case\n\nFinally, the defendant also argues that the “numerous substantive pretrial motions now before the Court amply challenge the purported strength of the government’s case.” (Mot. at 7). But the defendant cannot merely point to the sheer volume of briefing she has filed to suggest that the strength of the Government’s case has diminished. To the contrary, as the Government has set forth in detail in its memorandum in opposition, the defendant’s pretrial motions are entirely without merit. In any event, it is premature for the defendant to claim that her pretrial motions—which have not been adjudicated, much less granted—have altered the Court’s original\n\n2 The defendant’s proposal also leaves unrestrained several million dollars in escrow for the defendant’s legal fees. See Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9 (listing approximately $7.6 million in retainer fees); see also Mot. at 6. If the defendant fled the country, her counsel would presumably be required to return those funds to the defendant, who would no longer need defense counsel in this case.",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "least $2 million. In addition, the defendant proposes that she retain an additional half a million dollars in liquid assets in an unrestrained account, as well as any future income.2 That figure appears to be in addition to the approximately $1 million in “chattels” the defendant has disclosed among her various assets. See Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9. In short, the defendant’s proposal would leave her with ample resources to fund her flight from prosecution.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Further still, the defendant’s Motion provides only cursory details of the monitorship program she proposes, and it offers no legal precedent to explain what, if any, authority this Court has to establish and oversee such a monitorship. Aside from defense counsel’s assertions, the Motion offers nothing that would enable the Court to meaningfully consider the details of such a monitorship. Among other things, it is unclear from the defendant’s Motion whether such a program would require the defendant’s voluntary compliance with the monitorship, or whether the funds would be placed in a bank account that the defendant could not access. Given that the defendant’s Motion suggests that attorney’s fees could be disbursed without approval, it appears that the defendant’s proposal would provide her latitude to engage in financial transactions, subject only to a review that would require her voluntary compliance.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, although the defendant does not provide any detail about the amount of money she would pay the monitor, presumably the monitor would not undertake this responsibility for free. As a result, the tension between the monitor’s obligation to review the defendant’s finances and the monitor’s employment relationship with the defendant creates a conflict of interest. But at bottom, if the Court determines that the only way to keep the defendant from using her assets to flee is to take away control of her assets, then she is too great a flight risk to release.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In sum, in light of this Court’s determination that the defendant “has not been fully candid about her financial situation,” the Court should reject the defendant’s vague proposal. (Dec. Op. at 2). Nothing in the defendant’s Motion should alter the Court’s determination that the defendant poses a significant risk of flight, and that she has the resources and skills to flee prosecution. The Court should reject the proposed bail conditions.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3. The Defendant’s Pending Pretrial Motions Have Not Diminished the Strength of the Government’s Case",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Finally, the defendant also argues that the “numerous substantive pretrial motions now before the Court amply challenge the purported strength of the government’s case.” (Mot. at 7). But the defendant cannot merely point to the sheer volume of briefing she has filed to suggest that the strength of the Government’s case has diminished. To the contrary, as the Government has set forth in detail in its memorandum in opposition, the defendant’s pretrial motions are entirely without merit. In any event, it is premature for the defendant to claim that her pretrial motions—which have not been adjudicated, much less granted—have altered the Court’s original",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "2 The defendant’s proposal also leaves unrestrained several million dollars in escrow for the defendant’s legal fees. See Dkt. 97, Ex. O at 9 (listing approximately $7.6 million in retainer fees); see also Mot. at 6. If the defendant fled the country, her counsel would presumably be required to return those funds to the defendant, who would no longer need defense counsel in this case.",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "12107-000"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a defendant's bail conditions and pretrial motions. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is page 8 of a larger filing."
}