epstein-docs.github.io/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003713.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "5",
    "document_number": "208",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 16\n\nThe government misunderstands both the law and the facts related to the Giuffre v. Maxwell defamation litigation. Although the government aspires to present “a more streamlined presentation” at trial (Resp. 118 fn. 46), it is unlikely to meet this goal. What follows is a very truncated discussion of some of the facts to place the questions and answers in Ms. Maxwell’s depositions from that civil action in context:\n\nI. The Defamation Action\n\nIn 2008, two alleged Epstein victims brought an action under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) against the United States government purporting to challenge Epstein’s plea agreement. They alleged the government violated their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement. Seven years later, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre moved to join the CVRA action, claiming she too had her CVRA rights violated by the government. On January 1, 2015, Ms. Giuffre filed a “corrected” joinder motion. The issue presented in her joinder motion was narrow: whether she should be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically, whether she was a “known victim” of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties,” Ex. L at 5. Yet, the court noted, “the bulk of the [motion] consists of copious factual details that [Giuffre] and [her co-movant] ‘would prove . . . if allowed to join.’” Id. (brackets omitted). Ms. Giuffre gratuitously included provocative and “lurid details” of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Id.\n\nAt the time they filed the motion, Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing Ms. Giuffre’s name, claiming the need for privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly.\n\nAs the district court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, Ms. Giuffre “name[d] several",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 208 Filed 04/16/21 Page 5 of 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government misunderstands both the law and the facts related to the Giuffre v. Maxwell defamation litigation. Although the government aspires to present “a more streamlined presentation” at trial (Resp. 118 fn. 46), it is unlikely to meet this goal. What follows is a very truncated discussion of some of the facts to place the questions and answers in Ms. Maxwell’s depositions from that civil action in context:",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "I. The Defamation Action",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "In 2008, two alleged Epstein victims brought an action under the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) against the United States government purporting to challenge Epstein’s plea agreement. They alleged the government violated their CVRA rights by entering into the agreement. Seven years later, on December 30, 2014, Ms. Giuffre moved to join the CVRA action, claiming she too had her CVRA rights violated by the government. On January 1, 2015, Ms. Giuffre filed a “corrected” joinder motion. The issue presented in her joinder motion was narrow: whether she should be permitted to join the CVRA action as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, specifically, whether she was a “known victim” of Mr. Epstein and the Government owed them CVRA duties,” Ex. L at 5. Yet, the court noted, “the bulk of the [motion] consists of copious factual details that [Giuffre] and [her co-movant] ‘would prove . . . if allowed to join.’” Id. (brackets omitted). Ms. Giuffre gratuitously included provocative and “lurid details” of her alleged sexual activities as an alleged victim of sexual trafficking. Id.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "At the time they filed the motion, Ms. Giuffre and her lawyers knew that the media had been following the Epstein criminal case and the CVRA action. While they deliberately filed the motion without disclosing Ms. Giuffre’s name, claiming the need for privacy and secrecy, they made no attempt to file the motion under seal. Quite the contrary, they filed the motion publicly.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As the district court noted in ruling on the joinder motion, Ms. Giuffre “name[d] several",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003713",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ]
}