mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00004155.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "20 of 34",
    "document_number": "285",
    "date": "05/20/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 20 of 34\n\nI want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank[15] kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.\n\nId. (emphasis added).\n\n“Tellingly,”16 Judge McMahon did not ask AUSA about the “target” of his investigation; she asked about its “subject.” The “subject of [the] investigation” is much broader than its “target.”\n\n“A ‘target’ is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.”17 “A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.”18 The scope of an investigation, in turn, includes not only potential defendants and potential victims, but also the conduct at issue and the locations involved.\n\nWere there any doubt about Judge McMahon's meaning, she put that doubt to rest in her written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G, p 21. The “subject of the investigation,” she explained, was “the matters that were the subject of the Giuffre [defamation] Action.” Id. And having asked AUSA about his office's contacts with Boies Schiller about “the\n\n15 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).\n\n16 “Tellingly,” claims the government in the Response, “Maxwell omits [the phrase 'subject of your investigation'] of this question from her motion.” Resp. at 70 n.34. Not true. On page 13 of Maxwell's Motion, in arguing that AUSA mislead Judge McMahon, Maxwell fully and completely quotes Judge McMahon's question, just as she does above. Mot. at 13 (quoting Ex. E, p 2).\n\n17 United States Department of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151, Grand Jury, Advice of \"Rights\" of Grand Jury Witnesses (updated Jan. 2020), available at: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.151 (last accessed Mar. 11, 2021).\n\n18 Id.\n\nDOJ-OGR-00004155",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 285 Filed 05/20/21 Page 20 of 34",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I want to make sure I'm not in a Chemical Bank[15] kind of situation, so I would like to know about contacts between the United States Attorney's Office and the Boies Schiller firm prior to the issuance of the subpoena on the subject of your investigation.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Id. (emphasis added).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "“Tellingly,”16 Judge McMahon did not ask AUSA about the “target” of his investigation; she asked about its “subject.” The “subject of [the] investigation” is much broader than its “target.”",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "“A ‘target’ is a person as to whom the prosecutor or the grand jury has substantial evidence linking him or her to the commission of a crime and who, in the judgment of the prosecutor, is a putative defendant.”17 “A ‘subject’ of an investigation is a person whose conduct is within the scope of the grand jury's investigation.”18 The scope of an investigation, in turn, includes not only potential defendants and potential victims, but also the conduct at issue and the locations involved.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Were there any doubt about Judge McMahon's meaning, she put that doubt to rest in her written order authorizing the subpoena. Mot. Ex. G, p 21. The “subject of the investigation,” she explained, was “the matters that were the subject of the Giuffre [defamation] Action.” Id. And having asked AUSA about his office's contacts with Boies Schiller about “the",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "15 Chemical Bank v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 154 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 1994).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "16 “Tellingly,” claims the government in the Response, “Maxwell omits [the phrase 'subject of your investigation'] of this question from her motion.” Resp. at 70 n.34. Not true. On page 13 of Maxwell's Motion, in arguing that AUSA mislead Judge McMahon, Maxwell fully and completely quotes Judge McMahon's question, just as she does above. Mot. at 13 (quoting Ex. E, p 2).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "17 United States Department of Justice, JUSTICE MANUAL, JM § 9-11.151, Grand Jury, Advice of \"Rights\" of Grand Jury Witnesses (updated Jan. 2020), available at: https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-11000-grand-jury#9-11.151 (last accessed Mar. 11, 2021).",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "18 Id.",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00004155",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Judge McMahon",
      "Maxwell",
      "Giuffre"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States Attorney's Office",
      "Boies Schiller firm",
      "United States Department of Justice"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "05/20/21",
      "Jan. 2020",
      "Mar. 11, 2021"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "285",
      "DOJ-OGR-00004155"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with citations and references to legal precedents and statutes. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is likely a page from a larger filing or brief."
}