mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003908.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "224",
    "date": "04/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 11 of 17\n\n\"cumulate evidence\" of all of the crimes charged to find her guilty on particular counts, without considering them separately. United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 440 (2d Cir. 1978).\n\nFurthermore, the government ignores the proverbial elephant in the room, materiality, which inevitably involves complicated discussions, and evidence, about civil litigation, defamation law, and the Giuffre v. Maxwell defamation litigation, all of which are inadmissible as to the Mann Act Counts, under F.R.E. 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). Any prosecution of the Perjury Counts exposes the jury to evidence about:\n\n- The genesis of the defamation action including:\n  - What Ms. Giuffre said in a pleading in 2015 filed in ongoing litigation under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) initiated by her lawyers in Florida.\n  - The nature of the CVRA litigation, including claims by alleged Epstein victims that the government had violated their rights in negotiating a secret sweetheart deal with Epstein in which Ms. Maxwell and others were given immunity from prosecution.\n  - That these statements, ultimately stricken by United States District Court Marra, were widely publicized.\n  - Ms. Maxwell, through her lawyer in London, issued a response that Giuffre's claims in the CVRA pleading were \"obvious lies.\"\n  - The reasons why Giuffre's false statements were \"obvious lies,\" which would include testimony from prominent academics, political figures, business leaders, and celebrities who all, like Ms. Maxwell, said Giuffre lied.\n- Civil litigation discovery practices, generally, including:\n  - How discovery is obtained.\n  - Permissible questions and objections in depositions.\n  - Defamation litigation generally, including:\n    - The elements of a defamation claim;\n    - Defenses to defamation claims, including truth (and a plethora of other defenses).\n\n7\nDOJ-OGR-00003908",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 224 Filed 04/20/21 Page 11 of 17",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"cumulate evidence\" of all of the crimes charged to find her guilty on particular counts, without considering them separately. United States v. Halper, 590 F.2d 422, 440 (2d Cir. 1978).\n\nFurthermore, the government ignores the proverbial elephant in the room, materiality, which inevitably involves complicated discussions, and evidence, about civil litigation, defamation law, and the Giuffre v. Maxwell defamation litigation, all of which are inadmissible as to the Mann Act Counts, under F.R.E. 401, 402, 403, and 404(b). Any prosecution of the Perjury Counts exposes the jury to evidence about:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- The genesis of the defamation action including:\n  - What Ms. Giuffre said in a pleading in 2015 filed in ongoing litigation under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) initiated by her lawyers in Florida.\n  - The nature of the CVRA litigation, including claims by alleged Epstein victims that the government had violated their rights in negotiating a secret sweetheart deal with Epstein in which Ms. Maxwell and others were given immunity from prosecution.\n  - That these statements, ultimately stricken by United States District Court Marra, were widely publicized.\n  - Ms. Maxwell, through her lawyer in London, issued a response that Giuffre's claims in the CVRA pleading were \"obvious lies.\"\n  - The reasons why Giuffre's false statements were \"obvious lies,\" which would include testimony from prominent academics, political figures, business leaders, and celebrities who all, like Ms. Maxwell, said Giuffre lied.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "- Civil litigation discovery practices, generally, including:\n  - How discovery is obtained.\n  - Permissible questions and objections in depositions.\n  - Defamation litigation generally, including:\n    - The elements of a defamation claim;\n    - Defenses to defamation claims, including truth (and a plethora of other defenses).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "7",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003908",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Giuffre",
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Halper",
      "Marra"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States District Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida",
      "London"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/20/21",
      "2015"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 224",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003908",
      "590 F.2d 422"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of United States v. Maxwell. The text discusses the admissibility of evidence and the potential impact of perjury counts on the trial. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}