mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00009889.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 32",
    "document_number": "644",
    "date": "03/11/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 20 of 32\n\nQuestion 48 was not confusing or complicated and, again, there is no credible explanation for why the victim of a sexual assault, in a case about sexual assault, would not have taken a long look at that question. The claim that he just “missed it” or “forgot” or “didn’t understand” is after-the-fact, self-serving, nonsense, the type of nonsense repeatedly rejected by courts, not to mention the government, when addressing material omissions or false oaths by omission.\n\nFor example, in bankruptcy proceedings the failure to truthfully answer questions about assets or ownership interests regularly leads the government to move to dismiss the debtor’s petition. Not surprisingly, debtors often claim confusion, mistake, or inadvertence as the reason for the false answer. However, success of a bankruptcy program (like jury trials) “hangs heavily on the veracity of statements made by the bankrupt”—or here, the prospective jurors. See Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co., 407 F.2d 1330, 1330–31 (2d Cir. 1969). See also United States v. Stone, 282 F.2d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (the purpose of a debtor filling out a detailed financial disclosure (SOFA) “is to give dependable information without need of going further”). When a false-oath-giver claims carelessness as the reason for the untruthful statement, courts are skeptical because in a system that relies on a person’s word, the answers “must be regarded as serious business; reckless indifference to the truth, is the equivalent of fraud.” Diorio, 407 F.2d at 1330–31.\n\nIn a case like this one, which charges the defendant with perjury, it’s ironic the lengths to which the government has gone to excuse Juror No. 50’s false answers as nothing but an innocent mistake, an indulgence the government is unwilling to afford Ms. Maxwell.\n\n15\nDOJ-OGR-00009889",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 644 Filed 03/11/22 Page 20 of 32",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Question 48 was not confusing or complicated and, again, there is no credible explanation for why the victim of a sexual assault, in a case about sexual assault, would not have taken a long look at that question. The claim that he just “missed it” or “forgot” or “didn’t understand” is after-the-fact, self-serving, nonsense, the type of nonsense repeatedly rejected by courts, not to mention the government, when addressing material omissions or false oaths by omission.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "For example, in bankruptcy proceedings the failure to truthfully answer questions about assets or ownership interests regularly leads the government to move to dismiss the debtor’s petition. Not surprisingly, debtors often claim confusion, mistake, or inadvertence as the reason for the false answer. However, success of a bankruptcy program (like jury trials) “hangs heavily on the veracity of statements made by the bankrupt”—or here, the prospective jurors. See Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co., 407 F.2d 1330, 1330–31 (2d Cir. 1969). See also United States v. Stone, 282 F.2d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (the purpose of a debtor filling out a detailed financial disclosure (SOFA) “is to give dependable information without need of going further”). When a false-oath-giver claims carelessness as the reason for the untruthful statement, courts are skeptical because in a system that relies on a person’s word, the answers “must be regarded as serious business; reckless indifference to the truth, is the equivalent of fraud.” Diorio, 407 F.2d at 1330–31.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In a case like this one, which charges the defendant with perjury, it’s ironic the lengths to which the government has gone to excuse Juror No. 50’s false answers as nothing but an innocent mistake, an indulgence the government is unwilling to afford Ms. Maxwell.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009889",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "03/11/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 644",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009889"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a sexual assault case. The text discusses the credibility of a juror's answers and compares it to bankruptcy proceedings. The document is well-formatted and free of handwritten notes or stamps."
}