mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00002418.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "136",
    "date": "02/04/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 27\n\nDuring the first deposition on April 22, 2016, the subject of Count 5 of the Indictment, Ms. Maxwell was peppered with ambiguous questions about decades-old events in unidentified locations at unspecified times. The questions contained argumentative, loaded words and phrases that Giuffre's lawyers refused to define or clarify and asked Ms. Maxwell to speculate about Epstein's intent and state of mind. The vast majority of the questions had nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of the claims of Giuffre that Ms. Maxwell pointed out as \"obvious lies.\" Counsel for Ms. Maxwell was required to object to hundreds of questions that suffered from a myriad of form and/or foundational infirmities. Ms. Maxwell, when sitting for these depositions, knew she had done nothing wrong and was unaware that Giuffre's lawyers were encouraging the Government to initiate a criminal investigation.4 And had, no motive to lie in response, particularly given that Epstein had long ago served a prison sentence in Florida arising out of the same conduct that was the subject of the defamation action.\n\nAlthough a few lines of that first deposition testimony are quoted in the Indictment, the Government improperly redacted objections to the questions and omitted important preceding and following pages of testimony. The omitted portions of the transcript include numerous objections and requests for clarification regarding terms that the Government selectively quotes in the Indictment, such as \"scheme,\" \"recruit,\" and \"sexual massage.\" The two answers that the Government claims were knowingly and materially false statements were \"I don't know what\n\n4 Stephen Rex Brown, \"Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources,\" New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzhl7drzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html) (detailing David Boies' purported efforts to urge the SDNY US Attorney's Office to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in February 2016, shortly before her first deposition, and again after her second deposition, arguing in apparent violation of the protective order that she had committed perjury during her \"confidential\" depositions).\n\n4 DOJ-OGR-00002418",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 136 Filed 02/04/21 Page 9 of 27",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "During the first deposition on April 22, 2016, the subject of Count 5 of the Indictment, Ms. Maxwell was peppered with ambiguous questions about decades-old events in unidentified locations at unspecified times. The questions contained argumentative, loaded words and phrases that Giuffre's lawyers refused to define or clarify and asked Ms. Maxwell to speculate about Epstein's intent and state of mind. The vast majority of the questions had nothing to do with the actual truth or falsity of the claims of Giuffre that Ms. Maxwell pointed out as \"obvious lies.\" Counsel for Ms. Maxwell was required to object to hundreds of questions that suffered from a myriad of form and/or foundational infirmities. Ms. Maxwell, when sitting for these depositions, knew she had done nothing wrong and was unaware that Giuffre's lawyers were encouraging the Government to initiate a criminal investigation.4 And had, no motive to lie in response, particularly given that Epstein had long ago served a prison sentence in Florida arising out of the same conduct that was the subject of the defamation action.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Although a few lines of that first deposition testimony are quoted in the Indictment, the Government improperly redacted objections to the questions and omitted important preceding and following pages of testimony. The omitted portions of the transcript include numerous objections and requests for clarification regarding terms that the Government selectively quotes in the Indictment, such as \"scheme,\" \"recruit,\" and \"sexual massage.\" The two answers that the Government claims were knowingly and materially false statements were \"I don't know what",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 Stephen Rex Brown, \"Manhattan federal prosecutors declined to pursue Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell case in 2016: sources,\" New York Daily News (Oct. 13, 2020) (https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-jeffrey-epstein-maxwell-case-20201013-jmzhl7drzdgrbbs7yc6bfnszu-story.html) (detailing David Boies' purported efforts to urge the SDNY US Attorney's Office to prosecute Ms. Maxwell in February 2016, shortly before her first deposition, and again after her second deposition, arguing in apparent violation of the protective order that she had committed perjury during her \"confidential\" depositions).",
      "position": "footnote"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "4 DOJ-OGR-00002418",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Giuffre",
      "Epstein",
      "Stephen Rex Brown",
      "David Boies"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SDNY US Attorney's Office",
      "New York Daily News"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "April 22, 2016",
      "February 2016",
      "Oct. 13, 2020",
      "02/04/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 136",
      "DOJ-OGR-00002418"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The text is well-formatted and printed, with a clear structure and footnotes. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}