mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004279.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "14 of 32",
    "document_number": "293",
    "date": "05/25/21",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 32\n\nMaxwell, who called Accuser-4 from New York to schedule massage appointments. (Ex. C at 17:18-22, 25:1-6). It was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who encouraged Accuser-2 to recruit her friends to give him massages. (Id. at 25:25-26:18). And it was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who provided lingerie and other gifts to Accuser-4 and sent FedEx packages to her residence. (Id. at 28:19-29:10). Furthermore, Accuser-4 alleged that  led Accuser-4 upstairs to Epstein's bedroom the first time she gave him a massage by herself (id. at 25:7-15) and that  paid Accuser-4 $500 to take nude photographs of her at the Palm Beach residence at Epstein's request (id. at 27:1-10).\n\nUltimately, the proposed SDFL indictment sought to charge Epstein , not Ms. Maxwell, with a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:11-14 (the evidence relating to Accuser-4 formed “the basis for the allegation [in Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment] that Jeffrey Epstein  procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18”)). This is entirely consistent with the language of the NPA, , and not Ms. Maxwell, as one of the four named “potential co-conspirators.” (Ex. B at 5 of 7). In fact, the USAO-SDFL conceded that it never found “any specific evidence against” Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation. (See Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)).\n\nHence, it would not only be impermissible under the NPA to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment because they were “the subject of” the Florida Investigation and “the related grand jury investigation.” (Dkt. 207 at 7). It would also be entirely unjust to base a prosecution in this District on the same offenses related to the same accuser who never mentioned Ms. Maxwell—and instead implicated —when she first reported the allegations that form the basis of Counts Five and Six over thirteen years\n\n10\nDOJ-OGR-00004279",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 293 Filed 05/25/21 Page 14 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Maxwell, who called Accuser-4 from New York to schedule massage appointments. (Ex. C at 17:18-22, 25:1-6). It was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who encouraged Accuser-2 to recruit her friends to give him massages. (Id. at 25:25-26:18). And it was Epstein, not Ms. Maxwell, who provided lingerie and other gifts to Accuser-4 and sent FedEx packages to her residence. (Id. at 28:19-29:10). Furthermore, Accuser-4 alleged that  led Accuser-4 upstairs to Epstein's bedroom the first time she gave him a massage by herself (id. at 25:7-15) and that  paid Accuser-4 $500 to take nude photographs of her at the Palm Beach residence at Epstein's request (id. at 27:1-10).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Ultimately, the proposed SDFL indictment sought to charge Epstein , not Ms. Maxwell, with a sex trafficking offense involving Accuser-4. (Id. at 28:11-14 (the evidence relating to Accuser-4 formed “the basis for the allegation [in Count Two of the proposed SDFL indictment] that Jeffrey Epstein  procured [Accuser-4] to engage in commercial sex acts knowing that she was under 18”)). This is entirely consistent with the language of the NPA, , and not Ms. Maxwell, as one of the four named “potential co-conspirators.” (Ex. B at 5 of 7). In fact, the USAO-SDFL conceded that it never found “any specific evidence against” Ms. Maxwell related to the subject of their investigation. (See Ex. A, OPR Report at 167 (internal quotations omitted)).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Hence, it would not only be impermissible under the NPA to prosecute Ms. Maxwell for the offenses charged in Counts Five and Six of the S2 Indictment because they were “the subject of” the Florida Investigation and “the related grand jury investigation.” (Dkt. 207 at 7). It would also be entirely unjust to base a prosecution in this District on the same offenses related to the same accuser who never mentioned Ms. Maxwell—and instead implicated —when she first reported the allegations that form the basis of Counts Five and Six over thirteen years",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "10",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004279",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Jeffrey Epstein",
      "Accuser-4",
      "Accuser-2",
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "USAO-SDFL"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "New York",
      "Palm Beach",
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/25/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 293",
      "Ex. C",
      "Ex. B",
      "Ex. A",
      "Dkt. 207",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004279"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case against Ghislaine Maxwell, discussing the involvement of Jeffrey Epstein and the allegations against Maxwell. The text is mostly printed, with some redacted sections."
}