diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes
index 05736daa941af52dee8594cc2ae1a22a9e16e3ab..d95eefbe3417342324ad015ba063e760759bada2 100644
--- a/.gitattributes
+++ b/.gitattributes
@@ -61,3 +61,4 @@ saved_model/**/* filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
extracted/entities.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
extracted/embeddings.csv filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
catalogs/delineation-manifest.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
+marker2/ds9/ocr-manifest.json filter=lfs diff=lfs merge=lfs -text
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3f5a4d6c93b50b9a2c3f759dd9a8077f6e759d99
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marranohnson
+
+JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
+
+1.
+
+UNITED STATES
+
+### JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR A PROMPT RULING DENYING GOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY
+
+COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to request an expedited ruling on the Government's Motion to Stay. The Government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other motions) the Court has yet to rule on this particular motion. The practical effect of a lack of a ruling on that motion has been to effectively grant the stay — blocking discovery in this case. Court should rule quickly on that motion and deny that motion. Denying the stay would allow the limited discovery that the Court has previously authorized to move forward in this case, putting the case on a path toward final resolution.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+As the Court is aware, the victims filed this case alleging Government violations of the CVRA in July 2008. Through more than four years of litigation, however, the Government has refused to reach a stipulated set of facts regarding how it treated the victims. Accordingly, more than eighteen months ago, on March 21, 2011 the victims filed a motion to have their detailed recitation of the facts accepted because of the Government's failure to contest their facts (DE 49). On September 26, 2011, the Court denied that motion on the ground that the victims would instead be allowed limited discovery to develop a factual record (DE 99 at 11). The victims then sent limited discovery requests to the Government. On November 8, 2011, the same day that the production of discovery was due, rather than produce a single item of discovery or stipulate to a single fact, the Government filed a motion to dismiss the victims' case. The Government also filed an accompanying motion for a stay in this case.'
+
+On December 5, 2011, the victims filed a response to Government's motion to stay. The victims strenuously objected to the Government's approach, alleging specifically that "delay appears to be the Government's motivation for filing the motion to dismiss." DE 129 at 2. The victims went on to recount the fact that the Government had waited three years to file a motion to dismiss, concluding that "as a practical matter, the Government's motion has had the desired effect of delay: While its motion remains pending, the victims have been effectively denied any ability to obtain discovery from the Government." DE 129 at 2-3.
+
+Now, one year and one day later, the Government's strategy (aided by parallel motions from Jeffrey Epstein) continues to effectively block the victims from obtaining discovery and learning what happened during the Government's plea negotiations with the man who sexually abused them. Indeed, remarkably, the Government has effectively obtained a stay of
+
+I In an effort to keep the public from learning what it was doing, the Government asked that all of these motions be placed under seal. The victims can see no basis for sealing virtually all of the Government's pleadings. The victims' responses to the Government's sealed pleadings have left in the public Court file. In an effort to make the proceedings in this case more accessible to the public, on February 7, 2012, the victims filed a motion requesting an order from the Court directing the Government to file redacted pleadings in the public court file (DE 150). That motion remains pending.
+
+proceedings in this case for more than 365 days without the Court even having ruled, one way or the other, on its motion for stay.
+
+### REOUEST FOR A PROMPT RULING ON - AND DENIAL OF - THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A STAY
+
+This Court should promptly rule on Government's Motion For Stay. For all the reasons explained in the victims response filed on December 5, 2011 (DE 129), the Court should deny that motion for stay. Such a ruling would permit the victims to begin moving forward on discovery in this case, which will help steer the case towards a final resolution.
+
+The victims stand prepared to move rapidly on the discovery and other issues connected with this case. The victims respectfully request that the Court move this case forward so that they can receive the rights that Congress promised them in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. In the CVRA, Congress directed that crime victims have "[t]he right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay" and the courts must "take up and decide any motion asserting a victim's right forthwith." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7) & (d)(3). The victims respectfully suggest that the Government's stall tactics are improperly interfering with those rights. The Court should reject those tactics and allow discovery to proceed.
+
+DATED: December 6, 2012
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+The foregoing document was served on December 6, 2012, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system:
+
+
+
+Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2efe1f73b2b07a73ea007364dfe3db508e81706b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/EFTA00205685.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,338 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205685.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 5267,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.9,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg",
+ "_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_3.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 127.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 127.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR A PROMPT RULING DENYING \nGOVERNMENT'S MOTION TO STAY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 263.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.5,
+ 263.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 535.5,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 76.5,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 525.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 525.69
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 541.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 541.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "REOUEST FOR A PROMPT RULING ON - AND DENIAL OF - THE \nGOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A STAY",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 118.72800000000001,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.5942687988281,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 493.5942687988281,
+ 168.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 118.72800000000001,
+ 168.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.520263671875,
+ 83.42999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.520263671875,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 99.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205685"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9fb07bbacc31d9a994287d27113e92f7961fbf4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_4.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4d199659eeea906597245152d11d5d4779985102e221aa34bb1e025fdaa3431b
+size 7605
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8dea22b90085920dfa4d43cb1e40f59a4017495a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_3_Picture_6.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:a52c739ed57d9b62cdfb7ca3f3be3201b751c2b0ef4c947d027961b9cc6783f0
+size 7947
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_4_Picture_3.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_4_Picture_3.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9b0761563bcfe45b1fe532c5e7931990c47eabc1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205685/_page_4_Picture_3.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ec5484ee4b7582a3a401988200fec4f936006d2f2e6d8e9a405b7967ea3cf58e
+size 9512
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..360144529fb3267fbef49a2cb782bbef909562d1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.md
@@ -0,0 +1,25 @@
+**To:** [REDACTED] " [REDACTED] alex.acosta@[REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** Jane Does v. United States Partial Ruling
+
+**Date:** Tue, 27 Sep 2011 16:30:45 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Attachments:** DE99\_20110926\_Order\_granting\_in\_part\_Jane\_Does\_CVRA\_claim.pdf
+
+---
+
+Dear Jeff and Alex: Just wanted to pass this along, fyi. Judge Marra issued a partial decision yesterday.
+
+<>
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+[REDACTED]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce68554db95fcf54329d7421fe4478fffdfbcab2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205690/EFTA00205690.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205690.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 557,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.28,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205690"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aa98034c03d34f0916e0458a6df1de131dff093
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.md
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOES #1 AND #2,
+
+Plaintiffs,
+
+vs.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective order against disclosure of certain correspondences at issue in Plaintiffs' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE 51), the Court will defer ruling on the latter motion until the intervention motion is ripe for review.
+
+## Background'
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are alleged victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County. Between 2001 and 2007, Epstein sexually abused multiple underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion, including Plaintiffs. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein was inducing underage girls to engage in sexual acts. The case was eventually presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted it for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating similar allegations against Epstein. Plaintiffs allege that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence.
+
+In June 2007, the FBI delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard victim-notification letter, which explained that the case against Epstein was "under investigation" and notified Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). In August 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a similar notification letter.
+
+In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office began plea discussions. The negotiations led to an agreement under which Epstein would plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the U.S.
+
+This background discussion is based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act (DE I) and the Statement of Material Facts in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52). These allegations are not yet supported by evidence and the Court relies on them here solely to provide the context for the threshold legal issues addressed in this order. As discussed below, further factual development is necessary to resolve the additional issues raised in Plaintiffs' motions.
+
+Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office executed a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") under these terms.
+
+Plaintiffs contend that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with them regarding the plea discussions and, in fact, intentionally kept secret the negotiations and the NPA. From September 24, 2007, the day on which the NPA was executed, through June 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not notify either Plaintiff of the existence of the NPA.
+
+During this period, Plaintiffs communicated multiple times with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, but neither Plaintiff was informed of the NPA. On January 10, 2008, the FBI sent letters to Plaintiffs advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation," but failing to disclose the existence of the NPA. On January 32, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI agents and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss her abuse by Epstein. The government did not disclose the existence of the NPA. In mid-June 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") handling their case to discuss the status of the investigation. The AUSA did not disclose the existence of the NPA. On June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office notified Plaintiffs' counsel that Epstein was scheduled to plead guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose the existence of the NPA nor the relationship between Epstein's state plea and the U.S. Attorney's Office's agreement to forgo federal charges. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office stating Jane Doe #1's desire that it bring federal charges against Epstein.
+
+On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the CVRA! Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this development, had violated her rights under the CVRA. The United States responded to the petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government's response also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.
+
+On July 11, 2008, this Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1's petition, at which Jane Doe #2 was added as a plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that their petition did not present an emergency and that therefore an immediate resolution was not necessary. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference and ordered the United States to turn over the NPA to all identified victims, including Plaintiffs, and further ordered the parties to work out the terms of a protective order governing the NPA's disclosure.
+
+This action was relatively inactive for the next year and one-half while Plaintiffs litigated civil actions against Epstein. After those cases settled, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve their CVRA dispute with the U.S. Attorney's Office. On March 18, 2011, after the parties' settlement efforts failed, Plaintiffs filed a series of motions, which the Court now addresses in turn, along with Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene.
+
+x27;Jane Doe #2 joined this action after Jane Doe # I filed the initial Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act.
+
+#### I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
+
+The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure them involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4ih Cir. 2007); Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRAJ was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the following eight rights:
+
+- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
+- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
+- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
+- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
+- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
+- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
+- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
+- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
+
+18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+
+If a prosecution is underway, the CVRA grants victims standing to vindicate their rights in the ongoing criminal action. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If, however, a prosecution is not underway, the victims may initiate a new action under the CVRA in the district court of the
+
+district where the crime occurred.' Id. The statute also tasks the district courts and the prosecutors with the responsibility of protecting these rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("[T]he court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); § 3771(c)(1) ("Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).").
+
+Here, Plaintiffs first argue that as a matter of law the CVRA's protections attach before a formal charge is filed against the criminal defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that the CVRA applied here and that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights; namely, their rights to confer, to be treated with fairness, and to accurate and timely notice of court proceedings. Based on these violations, Plaintiffs request that this Court set a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy, which according to Plaintiffs is to invalidate the nonprosecution agreement.
+
+The United States argues that as a matter of law the CVRA does not apply before formal charges are filed, i.e., before an indictment or similar charging document, and therefore does not apply here because formal charges were never filed against Epstein. The United States further argues that even if the CVRA applied here, the U.S. Attorney's Office complied with its requirements.
+
+The Court first addresses the threshold issue whether the CVRA attaches before the government brings formal charges against the defendant The Court holds that it does because the
+
+Here, because no criminal case was pending, Plaintiffs filed their petition as a new matter in this judicial district, which the Clerk of Court docketed as a civil action.
+
+statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge proceedings. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) provide rights that attach to "any public court proceeding ... involving the crime." Similarly, subsection (b) requires courts to ensure CVRA rights in "any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim." Court proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge. By way of example, under Rule 5(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon arrest the defendant must be taken before a magistrate judge "without unnecessary delay" for an initial appearance. If the arrest takes place on a weekday, "without unnecessary delay" will typically require that the initial appearance occur the following morning, which will often be within twenty-four hours of arrest. See United States v. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697, 702 (56 Cir. 1973) (holding that the government satisfied Rule 5's "without unnecessary delay" requirement by bringing the defendant before the magistrate judge on the first weekday morning following the arrest). By contrast, Rule 5(b) requires that where the defendant is arrested without a warrant, the government must file the complaint "promptly." The Supreme Court has interpreted "promptly" under Rule 5(b) as generally requiring that the complaint be filed within forty-eight hours of arrest. Cnty. Of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991). It is therefore possible that where the defendant is arrested on a weekday without a warrant, the initial appearance—which may also involve the detention or bond hearing under Rule 5(d)(3)—will take place before the government files the criminal complaint.
+
+Subsection (cX1) requires that "Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or
+
+prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights in subsection (a)." (Emphasis added). Subsection (c)(I)'s requirement that officials engaged in "detection [or] investigation" afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.
+
+Subsection (d)(3) explains that the CVRA's enumerated rights "shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." (Emphasis added). If the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime.
+
+This interpretation is consistent with other federal decisions that have addressed the scope of the CVRA. For instance, in In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5\* Cir. 2008), the court held that subsection (a)(5)'s "right to confer" applied before any prosecution is underway. Id. at 394. Specifically, the court explained:
+
+The district court acknowledged that "there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain.
+
+Id. at 394 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal district courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing victims' "ability to seek pre-prosecution relief' under the CVRA); United States v. Okun, No. 08-132, 2009 WL 790042, at '2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) ("[T]he Fifth
+
+Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt."); United States v. BP Prods N. Am. Inc., No. 07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at \*11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) ("There are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean 527 F.3d 391 (5ih Cir. 2008).
+
+The United States argues that because the CVRA accords rights related to "any court proceeding," 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(b)(1), (d)(3), and "in the case," § 3771(b)(5), the CVRA applies only after formal charges are filed. The Court finds this argument unavailing. First, as discussed above, "court proceedings" can occur before formal charges are filed. Similarly, subsection (a)(5)'s reference to the right to confer with "the attorney for the Government in the case," is not limited to post-charge proceedings, as the United States is represented by attorneys in each criminal case at, for example, initial appearances and bond hearings.' Last, the government's interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections, such as subsection (c)(1)'s mandate that U.S. agencies involved at the "detection" and "investigation" stage use their best efforts to accord victims their enumerated rights under the CVRA and subsection (d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA
+
+For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at \*2 (holding that a "victim's `right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy' may apply before any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a `court proceeding' or `case,'" but concluding that "the right 'to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case' ... arise[s] only after charges have been brought against a defendant and a case has been opened"). But see In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394 (holding that under subsection (a)(5), "the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges").
+
+rights even if "no prosecution is underway." See United States v. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11ih Cir. 1999) ("[W]e read the statute to give full effect to each of its provisions. We do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire statutory context.") (citation omitted).
+
+The Court also rejects the United States' argument that pre-charge CVRA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making. Any encroachment into the prosecutors' discretion is expressly limited by the CVRA itself, which provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). As the court explained in Rubin, "there is absolutely no suggestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime, set strategy, or object to or appeal pretrial or in limine orders .... In short, the CVRA, for the most part, gives victims a voice, not a veto." 558 F. Supp. at 418; see also BP Prods N. Am., 2008 WL 501321, at \*15 ("Even under an expansive approach, the reasonable right to confer on a proposed plea agreement and the government's obligation to provide notice of that right is subject to the limit that the CVRA not impair prosecutorial discretion."). Thus, to the extent that the victims' pre-charge CVRA rights impinge upon prosecutorial discretion, under the plain language of the statute those rights must yield.
+
+Having determined that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed, the Court must address whether the particular rights asserted here attached and, if so, whether the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights. However, the Court lacks a factual record to support such findings and must therefore defer ruling on these two issues pending the limited discovery discussed below.
+
+## II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
+
+For the reasons stated on the record at the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' request to have their facts accepted as true.
+
+#### III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence
+
+Plaintiffs request an order from the Court "directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case." (DE 50 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek all information and material known to the government that may be favorable to the victims regarding possible violations of their rights under the CVRA. The United States opposes the motion, arguing that neither the CVRA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to Plaintiffs here.
+
+At the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the United States agreed that this Court, under its inherent authority to manage this case, could impose discovery obligations on each party. Because the Court finds that some factual development is necessary to resolve the remaining issues in this case, it will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Either party may request additional discovery if necessary.
+
+Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on Plaintiffs' motion.
+
+## IV. Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order
+
+Bruce E. Reinhart seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and improperly represented Epstein victims in follow-on civil suits. (DE 48 at 22). Plaintiffs contend that such conduct "give[s], at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry [favor] with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment." (DE 48 at 23). Reinhart takes great offense to these accusation—which he contends are false, irrelevant to the CVRA claims, and gratuitous—and seeks intervention to rebut these allegations and move for sanctions.
+
+Under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." It is "wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b) and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention." In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th 2006). The Court will deny Reinhart's request to intervene.
+
+First, the Court finds that Reinhart's claim does not share a common question of law or fact with the CVRA action. Reinhart claims that two paragraphs of Plaintiffs' forty-page motion make groundless and bad-faith accusations against his integrity and character. However, the veracity of Plaintiffs' two paragraphs—i.e., whether Reinhart used his position at the U.S. Attorney's Office to ingratiate himself with Epstein and advance his career in private practice—involves no common questions with the Plaintiffs' claims that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights through the process in which it entered into the NPA with Epstein. Indeed, Reinhart's motion argues that the allegations against him are "irrelevant" and that Plaintiffs "do[] not make any effort to connect these allegations to the relief [they] seek[]." (DE 79 at 2).
+
+Second, even if these accusations shared common questions with Plaintiffs' CVRA claims, the Court would exercise its discretion and deny intervention. The Court cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation. Absent some other concrete interest in these proceedings, the Court does not believe that the allegations here are sufficiently harmful to justify permissive intervention. Reinhart has publicly aired his opposition to and denial of Plaintiffs' contentions, both on this docket and in open court, and the Court finds that further proceedings on this issue are unwarranted. For the same reason, the Court declines to conduct a sua sponte Rule 11 inquiry.
+
+## Conclusion
+
+For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court concludes that the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed. The
+
+Court defers ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs' CVRA claims until the parties complete the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted (DE 49) is DENIED.
+
+The Court reserves ruling Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50) pending the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79) is DENIED.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 26ih day of September, 2011.
+
+> rZ ge KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ac515eac6eedea5f3a0970d8dca60499ad3dedd3
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205691/EFTA00205691.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,737 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205691.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 14,
+ "chars": 24999,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.82,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 114.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 114.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Background'",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.5708923339844,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.5708923339844,
+ 86.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 86.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to \nContest Any of the Facts",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant \nEvidence",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 170.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 170.91
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 199.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 199.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IV. Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule \n11 Order",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205691"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..683dfa98b1bd7abdf6337418d7706c7f0f713c2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+To: "-( ")SLFASU(r
+
+Subject: Re: Epstein
+
+Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:10:58 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+No, I just talked to yesterday afternoon and he wanted to discuss the underlying investigation. I was planning on meeting over at the FBI.
+
+In light of request, I will reschedule at a time that works for
+
+do you want to attend?
+
+AUSA
+
+From: (USAFLS)
+
+Sent: Friday, October 07 2011 02:56 PM
+
+To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Subject: RE: Epstein
+
+Has someone talked to yet about the meeting? I know that he is scheduled to give a mandatory ethics lecture that morning in Miami.
+
+From: (USAFLS)
+
+Sent: Frida October 07, 2011 2:22 PM
+
+To: (USAFLM ; . (USAFLS)
+
+Cc: (USAFLM); (USAFLS)
+
+Subject: RE: Epstein
+
+Thanks I am also including his familiarity with some of the legal issues we face. Thanks. on this e-mail given
+
+From: (USAFLM)
+
+Sent: Friday, October 07, 2011 2:20 PM
+
+To: aril= (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Cc: (USAFLM)
+
+Subject: Epstein
+
+I am the AUSA from the MDFL assigned to the Epstein matter. In that regard, and I have arranged for a meeting in West Palm Beach for a full debriefing on all issues. I would like to include in that meeting, which we have set for October 27, 2011.
+
+Regards,
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..636b66eee4286022139dfb67634e0f5b87e622c9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205705/EFTA00205705.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205705.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1182,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.34,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 83
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205705"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8160f95a6832f0d61dd16c734ba26465d7f86650
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.md
@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+To:"- (USAFLS)" <
+
+Subject: Re: Epstein
+
+Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 19:23:51 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+is starting a trial. I will see what I can do on Tuesday.
+
+AUSA
+
+From: (USAFLS)
+
+Sent: Friday, October 07,\_201103:21 PM
+
+To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Subject: RE: Epstein
+
+Sure. But given the timetable created by the Jane Does' discovery request, do you think it would be possible to meet earlier than October 27th? If some district (whether MDFL or some other district) with venue and jurisdiction over the offenses is going to evaluate potential criminal charges and is willing to confer with Jane Does as part of that evaluation, it seems to me that it would be helpful to know that sooner rather than later for purposes of the CVRA litigation and the contemplated motion to dismiss. What do you think?
+
+By the way, was the MDFL given a copy of the NPA? I think they should be made aware that they should carefully review it to ensure that they do not run afoul of it.
+
+•
+
+From: (USAFLS)
+
+Sent: Frida October 07, 2011 3:11 PM
+
+To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Subject: Re: Epstein
+
+No, I just talked to yesterday afternoon and he wanted to discuss the underlying investigation. I was planning on meeting over at the FBI.
+
+In light of request, I will reschedule at a time that works for
+
+IS do you want to attend?
+
+AUSA
+
+From: (USAFLS)
+
+Sent: Friday, October 07 2011 02:56 PM
+
+To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Subject: RE: Epstein
+
+Has someone talked to yet about the meeting? I know that he is scheduled to give a mandatory ethics lecture that morning in Miami.
+
+Thanks I am also including mail given his familiarity with some of the legal issues we face. Thanks. on this e-
+
+From: (USAFLM)
+
+Sent: Frida October 07 2011 2:20 PM
+
+To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS)
+
+Cc: (USAFLM)
+
+Subject: Epstein
+
+I am the AUSA from the MDFL assigned to the Epstein matter. In that regard, Marie Villafana and I have arranged for a meeting in West Palm Beach for a full debriefing on all issues. I would like to include Lee in that meeting, which we have set for October 27, 2011.
+
+Regards,
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+Fort Myers Division, MDFL
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..431992bbb8b5d6651e2b7c9920c582a7a27d17aa
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205706/EFTA00205706.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,84 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205706.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2096,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.41,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 81
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205706"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..90b3345889f1b6b78b2be32f06bf59a6df4c9018
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.md
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
+Subject: Time for a call?
+
+Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:09:25 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: DE105\_20111010 Jane\_Does\_Motn\_for Excess\_Pages\_re\_Suppl\_Briefing.pdf; DE106- 1\_Transcript\_of New\_York\_Sex\_Offender Registration\_hearing.pdf; DE106\_20111010 Jane\_Does\_Resp\_to\_Suppl\_Briefing.pdf
+
+M - I am in Bogota, but I can easily give you a call. Just let me know what time works for you. Also, here are the items just filed by the learned professor. And, I just got a voicemail from Jay Lefkowitz (Mr. Epstein's lawyer). He didn't say why he was calling.
+
+«DE105\_20111010 \_Jane Does Motn for Excess Pages re Suppl Briefing.pdf>> <> «DE106\_20111010 \_Jane Does Resp to Suppl Briefing.pdf>>
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f15249643432ff9fe3605a3661850d54396a47ca
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/EFTA00205708.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205708.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 811,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.44,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205708"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97d0cfb16c4d198668658e815c637e5373b4f359
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205708/_page_0_Picture_6.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:fd387a3316b4454e805ce374648c54b16e69b9b783d6433d2bd31e33426c8d2d
+size 6150
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..45ceb709927679a131dec0d7f6924a1d8f385616
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.md
@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+## UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
+
+JANE DOE #1 and JANDE DOE #2
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES
+
+## JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FIVE EXTRA PAGES TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE BY ROY BLACK ET AL.
+
+COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move this Court to allow them five extra pages beyond the twenty-page limit to respond to the Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 94) and the government response thereto (DE 100). The motion is unopposed.
+
+In support of the motion, the victims note that initial Supplemental Briefing from Epstein they are responding to (DE 94) is 23 pages long. The Government's response (DE 100) supports many of Epstein's arguments and is 11 pages long. As a result, the victims have a total of 33 pages that they need to respond to. The victims require 25 pages to set forth all of their arguments and authorities on the issues addressed in the briefs. The victims have discussed this motion with counsel for Epstein and the Government, and they do not oppose the motion.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should allow Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 an additional five pages (a total of 25 pages) to respond to the Supplemental Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 94) and the government response thereto (DE 100).
+
+DATED: October 10. 2011
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+5/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the Universit of Utah
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+The foregoing document was served on October 10, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system:
+
+A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Attorney for the Government
+
+Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A.
+
+Miami, FL 33131 Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..59ec6961cad644eaa11e5fc58ce47bf9dc719795
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205709/EFTA00205709.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,231 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205709.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 2295,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.75,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 127.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 127.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR FIVE EXTRA \nPAGES TO RESPOND TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION \nTO INTERVENE BY ROY BLACK ET AL.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 263.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.25927734375,
+ 263.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 536.25927734375,
+ 306.60357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 75.888,
+ 306.60357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.8327941894531,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.8327941894531,
+ 99.9735107421875
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 99.9735107421875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.9544677734375,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 388.9544677734375,
+ 99.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 223.38,
+ 99.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205709"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..0db1a292eb76ddd2269a9264e09a3b3ddd5e9c4e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.md
@@ -0,0 +1,721 @@
+## EXHIBIT A
+
+SUPREME COURT NEW YORK COUNTY
+
+TRIAL TERM PART 66
+
+x THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK: INDICTMENT # : 30129/2010 •
+
+AGAINST
+
+JEFFREY EPSTEIN
+
+Defendant.
+
+## BEFORE:
+
+x SORA HEARING
+
+111 Centre Street New York, New York 10013 January 18, 2011
+
+HONORABLE RUTH PICKHOLZ Justice of the Supreme Court
+
+## APPEARANCES:
+
+For the People: CYRUS R. VANCE, JR., ESQ., New York County District Attorney One Hogan Place New York, New York 10013 BY: JENNIFER GAFFNEY, ESQ. Assistant District Attorney
+
+For the Defense: KIRKLAND & ELLI, LLP 153 East 53rd Street New York, New York 10022 BY: JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. SANDRA MUSUMECI, ESQ.
+
+> Vikki J. Benkel Senior Court Reporter
+
+C4
+
+1
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+COURT CLERK: This is number two on the calendar, matter of Jeffrey Epstein.
+
+Your appearances please.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Jennifer Gaffney for the People.
+
+Good afternoon, Your Honor.
+
+MR. LEFKOWITZ: Jay Lefkowitz and Sandra Musumeci for Mr. Epstein.
+
+THE COURT: Mr. Epstein is not here.
+
+MR. LEFKOWITZ: That's correct.
+
+THE COURT: Are you waiving his appearance?
+
+MR. LEKWOWITZ: Yes.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Your Honor, this case is on for a SORA hearing this afternoon.
+
+The People did receive the board's recommendation of a Level Three. However, we received the underlying information from them and also had some contact with Florida, and we don't believe that we can rely on the entire probable cause affidavit.
+
+Idon't know if the board sent that to you as well.
+
+THE COURT: I don't know why you cannot rely on it.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Because in Florida of all of the victims in that probable cause affidavit, they actually only went forward on one case. There was only an indictment for
+
+one victim and that is what the defendant plead to.
+
+So it is unlike a situation where everything was indicted and then we get to sort of assess points for all of the victims, if it was part of a plea bargain. They did not actually choose to go forward on any except for the one victim.
+
+So under the board guidelines, the risk assessment interim guidelines, it actually says, you know, by way of contrast if an offender is not indicted for an offense, it is strong evidence that the offense did not occur and I don't think --
+
+THE COURT: Do you find that if somebody is not indicted it is strong evidence that it did not occur?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: I don't know that we can rely on it as clear and convincing evidence if the prosecutor's office never went forward on it. The prosecution said that the victims, although they spoke to the police early on, did not cooperate with them. So we don't have any follow up information.
+
+THE COURT: But the board found a Level Three.
+
+I have to tell you, I am a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this. I have never seen it. I had a case with one instance it was a marine who went to a bar, and I wish I had the case before me, but he went to a bar and a 17
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+year old, he was an adult obviously, he was aMarine, a 17 year old came up to him and one thing lead to another and he had sex with her and the People would not agree to a downward modification on that.
+
+So I am alittle overwhelmed here because I see -- Imean I read everything here, I am just a little overwhelmed that the People are making this application.
+
+Icould cite many many, I have done many SORAs much less troubling than this one where the People would never make a downward argument like this.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: I agree with Your Honor, it is incredibly unusual for us to make a downward argument. But the problem is the one thing that we have from the board is it seems to be in contradiction to their own guidelines which if something was not indicted, you are not supposed to rely on it.
+
+THE COURT: They obviously took that into consideration.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: And I tried to reach -- I reached the authorities in Florida to try to see if they had all the interview notes or other things that we can then subsequently rely on that might be considered clear and convincing evidence, if they had interviewed these women on their own, and they never did. No one was cooperative and they did not go forward on any of the cases and none of them
+
+were indicted. So I don't know.
+
+THE COURT: And you spoke to the prosecutor?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: The actual prosecutor left the office. I spoke to the prosecutor that took over the case.
+
+THE COURT: Maybe you can find the prosecutor that left the office.
+
+You have done more in other cases looking into it. I have never seen the prosecutor's office do this. I have to tell you, I am shocked.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Right, but I spoke to the prosecutor that took over the case and they don't have anything, any affidavits, any statements, any notes.
+
+THE COURT: Why don't you speak to the prosecutor that did do the case, I am sure you could find that prosecutor.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: I can find her, but based upon what the other prosecutor said, they did not speak to that prosecutor either.
+
+THE COURT: You did not speak to the prosecutor yourself, you did not speak to them, that is hearsay. You did not speak to the prosecutor that handled the case.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: That's right.
+
+THE COURT: I don't think you did much of an investigation here.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: I mean I called the prosecutor.
+
+Even though the first prosecutor left, presumably the prosecutor's office has the file.
+
+THE COURT: I would still call the prosecutor.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Anything from these women they would have forwarded it to us.
+
+THE COURT: I don't know that, I think you have to speak to the prosecutor.
+
+But be that as it may, I hear your argument.
+
+Anything else?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: I mean that is why I don't think we can, I don't think we are entitled to rely on this because they did not go forward.
+
+THE COURT: The board made a recommendation.
+
+MS. GAFNEY: Correct.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: May I speak, Your Honor?
+
+THE COURT: Yes.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Good afternoon.
+
+I would like to bring a few additional points to Your Honor's attention that don't come across in the board recommendation.
+
+The first is that Mr. Epstein is not a resident of New York, unlike most of these out of state, he has not changed his address and moved to New York, he maintains a vacation home in New York. His primary residence is the U.S. Virgin Islands.
+
+He is registered in the U.S. Virgin Islands, he has been since his release from jail. He notifies the Virgin Island authorities every time he leaves that jurisdiction. Virgin Island authorities rated him at the lowest level of registration.
+
+He also registered in Florida, which is the state of this particular offense, and the only reason that this conviction is even before Your Honor.
+
+The offense for which he was convicted is not a registrable offense in New York. He is only registrable here arguably because based on the provision of SORA that says if a crime is registrable in the state of conviction, then it is registrable here in New York. And the Florida authorities that considered that rated him at the lowest level of their SORA statute.
+
+He additionally has a vacation home in New Mexico and is registered in New Mexico. The New Mexican authorities when they considered his offenses, determined he need not register at all. Nevertheless, he has voluntarily registered with New Mexico and maintains that registration.
+
+Additionally, because of his possession of a vacation home in New York, he has been voluntarily registered with New York SOMU, the Sex Offender Monitoring Unit since May of this year. He notifies them whenever he comes to travel to New York. He never comes to New York for
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+more than seven days or at least he has not since he has been registered. He has no intention to ever be here for longer than a period of ten days.
+
+Like I said, he does notify the authorities when he is here. He fully understands the reason for voluntary registration, he wants to be compliant with the Federal SORA law which requires wherever you own aproperty to register.
+
+To require Mr. Epstein to register as a Level Three offender in New York would actually require him to come to New York more than he does normally, it would require him to come every 90 days and renew his registration.
+
+He is very diligent in registering with New York authorities.
+
+All of the other jurisdictions that have considered his case have determined that he either not register at all or register at the lowest level, and he has been more than compliant with all of those requirements.
+
+Your Honor, we would join in the prosecutor's application.
+
+THE COURT: I am sure you would.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: By way of background, we have been in contact with the prosecutor's office on this matter since Ibelieve certainly since Mr. Epstein got his notification, which I believe was in August. We have met with the
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+prosecutor and provided numerous materials for the prosecutor to consider. We have included in that a deposition from the detective who headed this investigation who acknowledged in a sworn deposition that the lead prosecutor who originally had the case, whose name I cannot pronounce, Lanna Belohlavek, I apologize for the mispronunciation, said to the detective after her investigation, there are no real victims here.
+
+All of the alleged conduct that is cited in the board's write up was commercial conduct. All of the alleged conduct the women went voluntarily, there are no allegations of force certainly none.
+
+THE COURT: There was no allegation of force in the marine either, who met a girl in a bar, a young girl 17, there was no force there.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: It is our understanding that the prosecutor in Florida conducted a full investigation, as full as she was able with the cooperation afforded by these complainants, and determined that the only case that she could present to the grand jury was this indictment for a non registrable offense then --
+
+THE COURT: But it is registrable here.
+
+I don't know what you mean non registrable offense.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Let me explain, Your Honor.
+
+Mr. Epstein plead to two charges, one was an indictment which is an offense that is not registrable, it is a Florida indictment for --
+
+THE COURT: Then why does he have to register here?
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: It was a second offense that he plead to --
+
+THE COURT: That is registrable.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: That is registrable.
+
+That offense was by information and that is the only registrable offense, that is what the DA's office is considering in doing their scoring.
+
+The indictment which was the only case that the prosecutor even prosecuted through grand jury is not even a registrable offense.
+
+THE COURT: He plead guilty to a registrable offense.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Yes.
+
+THE COURT: What did he plead guilty to?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: He plead guilty to the procuring a person under 18 for prostitution.
+
+THE COURT: Procuring a person under 18 for prostitution.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Right.
+
+THE COURT: Haw old was she?
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: It appears the first time they met she was either 16 or 17, then for the remainder of their relationship she was probably 17.
+
+THE COURT: Haw long was their relationship?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: She met, she gave him approximately 15 massages, including with sexual contact, and ultimately when she is 17 had intercourse with him.
+
+THE COURT: She is a child.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Your Honor, I would note that under SORA it is clear that prostitution offenses are only registrable when in fact by clear and convincing evidence the women or victim is 17, is under 17.
+
+THE COURT: Well, she met him at 16, he procured her at 16 from what I read.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: There is evidence we challenged.
+
+THE COURT: He plead guilty to that, didn't he?
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: He plead guilty to under 18, which is the law in Florida, which is a different standard than what the law is in New York. And there is no evidence, there is no clear and convincing evidence as to her specific age at the time of the specific conduct.
+
+THE COURT: Well, the DA just told me she was most likely 17, she just said it on the record.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Your Honor, we agree that the evidence is that she was 17 on the one occasion she had
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+consensual intercourse with him and 17 is not registrable or criminal under New York law.
+
+And the prostitution aspect of having intercourse with a 17 year old is not registrable conduct.
+
+THE COURT: Why does he have to register here?
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Because it is a register able offense in Florida, New York State board of examiners --
+
+THE COURT: Recognizes it.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: Recognizes it, yes.
+
+THE COURT: I have had many cases like that where it was not registrable here but it was in the state where the person came from and New York recognized that.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Your Honor, we are not saying that he should not register. Mr. Epstein has already registered and recognizes his duty to register.
+
+THE COURT: I am glad of that, very glad of that.
+
+I am sorry he may have to come here every 90 days.
+
+He can give up his New York home if he does not want to come every 90 days.
+
+Anything else?
+
+I rely on the board.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: Your Honor, we would reserve our right to appeal Your Honor's ruling.
+
+THE COURT: Of course, do so.
+
+MS. GAFFNEY: For the record, Your Honor, he is
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+going to be deemed a Level Three sex offender with no designation, correct?
+
+THE COURT: Correct.
+
+MS. MUSUMECI: For purposes of the appeal I believe that Your Honor --
+
+THE COURT: Give me the board's scoring.
+
+The board has scored use of violence the least, 10.
+
+Sexual contact with victim, 25. I agree.
+
+Number of victims, three or more. He only plead guilty to one, but apparently there were more than one and I think the People concede that although they say it was not reliable.
+
+Duration of offense, conduct with victim, continuing course of sexual misconduct, the People have told me it was continuing for 20 points.
+
+Age of victim 11 through 16, he got 20 points for that, and she was 16 at the time.
+
+Other victim characteristics, there was no mental disable or helplessness. I agree.
+
+Relationship with victim stranger, 20 points.
+
+Age at first act of sexual misconduct, 20 or less. They scored him zero on that.
+
+Number and nature of prior crimes, no history, they scored him five on that.
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+Recency of prior offense less than three years, they gave him zero.
+
+Drug or alcohol abuse history, they gave him zero.
+
+Acceptance of responsibility, they gave him zero.
+
+Conduct while confined, they gave him zero.
+
+And supervision, they gave him zero.
+
+Living employment situation, zero.
+
+They gave him 130 points, which is the highest level, and I agree with that.
+
+MR. LEFKOWITZ: If I could be heard for one moment.
+
+It appears that the state board made its determination based on access to a police report in Florida.
+
+The prosecutor, the lead prosecutor, the lead sex crimes prosecutor in Palm Beach made a determination that the complainants and the police report itself was not credible and decided not to prosecute on the basis of all of that.
+
+In addition, there has been through the course of the last few years some civil litigation, as you might imagine, involving these matters and we now have sworn testimony in evidence from the complainants themselves disclaiming much of what appears in the police report.
+
+So, Your Honor, we would submit and this is not to make light in any way of the conduct what Mr. Epstein did or
+
+1 what Mr. Epstein plead guilty to, but with respect to
+2 everything and that is why Mr. Epstein voluntarily
+3 registered in New York even though there is a question about
+4 whether he has any obligation just as a jurisdictional
+5 matter, but Your Honor, with respect to the appropriate
+6 level for him to register, we would submit Your Honor that
+7 the evidence simply does not support the foundation of the
+8 state's determination.
+
+9 THE COURT: You have made a very clear record and
+10 you have your right to appeal.
+
+11 I feel the board looked into all of this, made
+12 their recommendation, found him to have 130 points and I see
+13 no reason to disturb that.
+
+14 Thank you.
+
+15
+16 I, Vikki J. Benkel, a Senior Court Reporter in and for
+17 the State of New York, do hereby certify that the foregoing
+18 transcript is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge,
+19 skill and ability.
+
+![]()22 Vikki J. Benkel
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..568cfdec5241fc5d071719f89b7d07914b2cd93d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205712/EFTA00205712.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,646 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205712.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 16,
+ "chars": 16977,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 13.38,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "EXHIBIT A",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 71.05999755859375,
+ 355.7019958496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.1543884277344,
+ 355.7019958496094
+ ],
+ [
+ 506.1543884277344,
+ 440.33758544921875
+ ],
+ [
+ 71.05999755859375,
+ 440.33758544921875
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BEFORE:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.31999969482422,
+ 311.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 217.74783325195312,
+ 311.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 217.74783325195312,
+ 326.8658142089844
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.31999969482422,
+ 326.8658142089844
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "APPEARANCES:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 116.02999877929688,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 286.61602783203125,
+ 401.76
+ ],
+ [
+ 286.61602783203125,
+ 417.6058349609375
+ ],
+ [
+ 116.02999877929688,
+ 417.6058349609375
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 123
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 271
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 109
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 343
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 109
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 316
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 112
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 38
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 101
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Caption",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205712"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..374f02acc19373e9e227ccb9faa386f07656829a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.md
@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
+
+JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES
+
+### JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ
+
+COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to the supplemental briefing of defense attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz to intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (DE 94) ("supplemental briefing").
+
+The victims continue to oppose the defense attorneys' motion to intervene in this civil CVRA enforcement action (DE 56) for all the reasons that they have articulated in their previous opposition (DE 78). Yet even though the defense attorneys have not been permitted to intervene, they have proceeded to brief the merits of arguments that they would present if the Court were to grant intervention, including most recently new "supplemental" briefing on the discoverability of plea negotiation correspondence. While the victims continue to believe that their arguments against the defense attorneys intervening are meritorious, out of an abundance of caution and to expedite this case, the victims now respond to the defense attorneys' new claims on the merits.
+
+The defense attorneys claim that the victims cannot use at trial (or even discover preliminarily) correspondence between them and the U.S. Attorney's Office arranging a highly unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement. The victims have already explained at length why the correspondence between Epstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Motion to Intervene (DE 78) at 4-6. Perhaps recognizing the strength of the victims' response, the defense attorneys now raise a new "supplemental" argument that a privilege somehow follows from either (1) Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or (2) a purported "common law privilege" for "plea negotiations" that the attorneys ask the Court to create under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. The defense arguments are meritless for multiple, independent reasons.
+
+With regard to Rule 410, the defense attorneys' efforts to invoke Rule 410 is simply premature. The rule bars only admissibility of information at trial, not collection of information through discovery. Accordingly, discovery is proper now and admissibility issues can be sorted out later.
+
+Second, this Court previously ruled in the civil case against Epstein that Rule 410 does not bar discovery of the correspondence. Epstein is collaterally estopped from re-litigating this same issue.
+
+Third, in any event, Rule 410 is simply inapplicable. The plain language of the rule covers admissibility into evidence of "any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4) (emphasis added). Epstein's plea discussions did result in a plea of guilty, and accordingly the rule does not apply.
+
+Fourth, the victims intend to use the correspondence to prove that the Government violated the CVRA violations and that various remedies are accordingly appropriate. Because Rule 410 only bars evidence from being admitted into evidence "against the defendant" who participated in plea discussions, the victims are (at the very minimum) entitled to obtain and use the correspondence in litigation with the Government.
+
+Fifth, Rule 410 makes plea bargaining statements admissible "in any proceeding wherein another statement wade in the course of the same plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it." Fed. R. Evid. 410. The Government has made clear that it intends to introduce considerable evidence about the course of plea discussions in this case in support of its position. As a matter of fairness, the victims are therefore entitled to discover evidence from the Government that might support their position.
+
+In addition to their Rule 410 argument, the defense attorneys quickly advance a fallback argument — that the Court should create a heretofore unrecognized "common law privilege" under Rule 501 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. This claim also lacks merit.
+
+First, the Court cannot create a "common law" plea bargaining privilege that would overturn limits that Congress crafted in Rule 410. Congress extended protection only to plea discussions "which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4) (emphasis added). Whatever the Court's "common law" rulemaking authority maybe, it certainly does not extend to trumping specific language in the Federal Rules of Evidence.
+
+Second, no such "common law" privilege exists. While the defense attorneys frequently allude to "constitutional considerations" that supposedly undergird plea bargain, the simple fact remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977). The Court should not exalt to privileged status negotiations that merely serve the administrative convenience of the parties over the important value of truth seeking.
+
+The Government has also filed a response to the supplemental briefing of the defense attorneys (DE 100), in which it claims that its plea bargaining correspondence with Epstein's lawyers is confidential work product material. The Government's arguments are without merit for three reasons. First, as the victims have previously explained, all the correspondence is discoverable because the CVRA requires the Government to makes its "best efforts" to support the victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1). Second, the CVRA bars the Government from erecting an adversarial work product privilege against the victims when they are attempting to secure information to protect their CVRA rights. Third, entirely apart from the CVRA, work product protections only extend to confidential materials. If the Government wishes to litigate this issue, it must prepare a privilege log. But the correspondence with defense attorneys is simply not confidential and therefore not protected by the work product doctrine.
+
+## I. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND EPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 410.
+
+The defense attorneys claim that, under Fed. R. Evid. 410, the victims cannot seek discovery of plea bargaining correspondence between them and the Government. Their arguments are unavailing.
+
+# A. RULE 410 DOES NOT BAR DISCOVERY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE.
+
+The defense attorneys' reliance on Rule 410 is simply premature. By its plain terms, the rule bars only admissibility of information at trial against the defendant who made the plea - the Rule does not apply to the discovery phase at all. See Fed. R. Evid. 410 (barring use of certain "evidence" in a "civil or criminal proceeding"). Accordingly, the victims can discover the correspondence now and the court can sort out trial admissibility issues later.
+
+#### B. EPSTEIN IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM RELITIGATING THE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 410.
+
+As the Court is well aware, the issue of whether the correspondence was somehow protected by Rule 410 was thoroughly litigated by the defense attorneys' client (Jeffrey Epstein) more than a year ago, and Epstein's arguments were more appropriate in the previous case (where he was actually a party to the litigation and the information discovered would likely be admitted against him). This Court rejected Epstein's arguments against disclosure in that case as well, including his argument that Rule 410 blocked disclosure. See, e.g., Jane Doe v. Epstein, doc. #462 at 10, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-ICAM (Feb. 4, 2010).
+
+The defense attorneys now propose to relitigate the very same issue of Rule 410's applicability in this case. Their effort to revisit the issue is barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel because: "(1) the issue at stake is identical to the one involved in the prior proceeding; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the prior proceeding; (3) the determination of the issue was critical and necessary to the earlier judgment; and (4) the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the prior proceeding." In re MDL-1824 Tri-State Water Rights Litigation, 644 F.3d 1160, 1202 (11th Cir. 2011).
+
+## C. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PLEA DISCUSSIONS LEAD TO A GUILTY PLEA.
+
+In any event, at any ultimate proceeding in this case, Rule 410 will simply be inapplicable. Because "Rule 410 is an exception to the general principle that all relevant evidence is admissible at trial, see Fed.R.Evid. 402, its limitations are not to be read broadly." United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir. 2005). The plain language of the rule is narrowly written to cover only a "statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4) (emphasis added). Obviously, a prerequisite to applying the rule is a case where no plea of guilty resulted. See, e.g., United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 596 (11th Cir. 1987) (discussing application of the rule in situations where "plea negotiations . . . broke down" and case went to trial); United States v. Gonzalez, 608 F.3d 1001 (7th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 952 (2011) (allowing use of plea discussions against a defendant who pleaded guilty because Rule 410(4) "makes admissions in plea bargaining inadmissible only if the plea bargaining either does 'not result in a plea of guilty"); United States v. Kerik, 531 F.Supp.2d 610, 618 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) (Rule 410 "only excludes statements made in plea discussions that do not result in a plea of guilty. As such, the rule does not apply here because Mr. Kerik eventually pleaded guilty."). Here, of course, Epstein's plea discussions did result in a plea of guilty. As the Court is well aware, Epstein engaged in extensive discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office in an effort to obtain a non-prosecution agreement. And ultimately he did obtain such an agreement — in exchange for pleading guilty to two state offenses.
+
+The terms of the non-prosecution agreement the victims are challenging make it quite clear that Epstein's plea discussions "result[ed] in a guilty plea." The agreement recites that "Epstein seeks to resolve globally his state and federal criminal liability and Epstein understands and acknowledges that, in exchange for the benefits provided by this agreement, he agrees to comply with its terms, including undertaking certain actions with the State Attorney's Office." Non-Prosecution Agreement at 2. The agreement goes on to specifically provide Epstein shall plead guilty to two offenses:
+
+"Epstein shall plead guilty . . to the Indictment as currently pending against him in the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County (Case No. 2006-cf-009495AXXXMB) charging one (1) count of solicitation of prostitution, in violation of Fl. Stat. § 796.07. In addition, Epstein shall plead guilty to an Information filed by the States Attorney's Office charging Epstein with an offense that requires him to register as a sex offender" that is, the solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution, in violation of Florida Statutes Section 796.03."
+
+Id. at 3 (emphases added). And, as the Court knows, Epstein did ultimately plead guilty to those two Florida offenses pursuant to the agreement.' Accordingly, Rule 410 gives Epstein no ability to block the victims from discovery and use of his attorneys' plea discussions because those discussions "result[ed] in a guilty plea.s2
+
+I Rule 410 draw no distinction between pleas in federal court and pleas in state court. See, e.g., United States v. Chapman, 954 F.2d 1352, 1360 (7th Cir. 1992) (applying rule to discussions over "withdrawn state plea"); United States v. Kerik, 531 F.Supp.2d 610 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Rule 410 applies in federal proceedings to statements made in connection with prior state pleas"); see also United States v. Holmes, 794 F.2d 345, 349 (8th Cir.1986) (permitting the admission of a guilty plea from state court in a federal proceeding).
+
+2 Because Epstein's lawyers are claiming that the correspondence is protected by Rule 410, they bear the burden of establishing all necessary facts for the application of the rule. If Epstein's lawyers claim that the plea discussions somehow did not result in a plea of guilty, the victims request a hearing under Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) to dispute this preliminary question of fact.
+
+Rather than address this obvious point, Epstein's lawyers engage in subterfuge. In their supplemental pleading, the lawyers claim that the correspondence with the U.S. Attorney's Office is protected by "the express language of Rule 410." DE 94 at 3. Yet, they cleverly paraphrase the "express language" of the rule in a way that avoids quoting the critical limiting language that restricts Rule 410 to discussions "which do not result in a plea of guilty." Fed. R. Evid. 410(4). See DE 94 at 4-5 (discussion of Rule 410 that fails to discuss the limitation of the rule to negotiations "result[ing] in a plea of guilty"). The express language of the Rule does not prevent the victims from introducing the correspondence in support of their claims about plea discussions concerning Epstein because he pled guilty.;
+
+## D. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WILL USE THE CORRESPONDENCE AGAINST (IF ANYONE) THE GOVERNMENT.
+
+Rule 410 is also inapplicable here because it would, at most, bar admissibility of the correspondence into evidence "against the defendant who made the plea" — i.e., against Jeffrey Epstein. But the victims intend to obtain and use the correspondence to seek relief from the Government. Accordingly, the Rule cannot be used to bar the victims from obtaining discovery of this information.
+
+By its plain terms, Rule 410 only bars the admission of evidence "against the defendant who made the plea." The purpose underlying this rule to "promote negotiations by permitting defendants to talk to prosecutors without sacrificing their ability to defend themselves if no disposition is reached." United States v. Barrow, 400 F.3d 109, 116 (2d Cir.2005) (emphases
+
+The express language of Rule 410 also makes clear that "derivative evidence" is never excluded from a proceeding. See United States v. Ruhkowsi, 814 F.2d 594, 599 (11th Cir. 1987).
+
+added). Thus, the Rule has no application where the discussions are being used not against a defendant but rather against the Government. See United States v. Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662, 691 (2d Cir. 1990).
+
+Here, the victims intend to use the correspondence against any argument the Government may make in this civil action seeking to enforce their CVRA rights.4 They intend to use the correspondence to prove initially that the Government violated their rights. Having proven a violation of their rights, they will then seek various remedies concerning the Government. To provide a straightforward example, one (quite modest) remedy that they will ask the Court to impose on the Government is an order directing the U.S. Attorney's Office write a letter of apology to the victims for deliberately violating their rights. Clearly the victims' use of the correspondence to prove that the Government did not afford them their rights and that such a remedy is appropriate lies outside Rule 410's ambit.
+
+Of course, the victims in this case seek far more than a letter of apology from the Government. As they have made clear throughout this litigation, they also intend to ask for the Court to impose (among other things) the one remedy that will most directly respond to the Government's violation of their rights: invalidation of the non-prosecution agreement so that they can confer with the Government about the possibility of actually prosecuting Epstein for the sex offenses he committed against them. Epstein's lawyers claim that any such use would be a use "against" the defendant and therefore covered by this language in Rule 410.5 This claim,
+
+4 As explained in Section III.B below, the victims do not believe they stand in an adversarial posture with the Government, as Congress has obligated the Government to use its "best efforts" to protect the CVRA rights of crime victims. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).
+
+5 Notably, the Government does not argue in its pleading that any use of the information
+
+however, assumes that the Rule 410 bars every court action that might ultimately have some collateral, harmful effect on a defendant. But Rule 410 is much more narrowly drafted forbidding not uses that may eventually harm the defendant, but instead more narrowly admissibility of plea negotiations into evidence "against" the defendant in a "civil or criminal proceeding." At this point, Epstein is not a party to the CVRA proceeding, and therefore it is not possible for any use of this correspondence to equate to forbidden admissibility of evidence "against" him. For this reason as well, the rule is inapplicable.
+
+## E. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE OTHER STATEMENTS WILL BE INTRODUCED AND, IN FAIRNESS, THE CORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.
+
+Rule 410 will also ultimately be inapplicable at trial because it contains a "completeness" exception. Even for plea bargain discussions protected by Rule 410, a plea bargain statement is admissible "in any proceeding wherein another statement made in the course of the same plea discussions has been introduced and the statement ought in fairness be considered contemporaneously with it." Fed. R. Evid. 410. The Government has already made it quite clear in its pleadings that it will introduce certain statements about the course of the plea negotiations. Rule 410 thus entitles the victims to respond by introducing other aspects of the plea negotiations.
+
+Rule 410's completeness rule requires the court to determine whether, when one statement about plea discussions is introduced, other statements ought to in fairness be introduced as well. While it is too early to say for certain what arguments the Government will make at any ultimate proceeding to determine whether it violated the victims CVRA rights, from
+
+against it would somehow violate Rule 410. See U.S. Response to Supplemental Briefing at 3.
+
+all indications the Government intends to introduce many statements about the timing and course of plea discussions. For example, in its response to the victims' summary judgment motion, the Government makes clear that it intends to argue that it properly conferred with the victims over an 18 month period of time. See U.S. Response to Jane Doe #1 and #2's Motion for Finding Violations of the CVRA at 37 (arguing that between August 2006 and January 2008 government prosecutors and agents "went above and beyond the minimum statutory requirements" in conferring with victims about plea negotiations). Similarly, the Government intends to dispute that it sent false notices to the victims about the case being "under investigation" because plea discussions had not reached a final conclusion at that time. Id. at 41 (arguing that "[d]uring the time that Epstein was challenging the NPA, the investigation continued and agents were able to conduct" witness interviews). The Government also intends to take the position that it reasonably stopped making notifications to the victims, because if Epstein did not plead guilty and there was a trial, Epstein would cross-examine the victims about payments they would have received pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement. Id. at 42.
+
+It is simply unfair for the Government to be able to pick and choose from all the events surrounding the plea negotiations only those that support its case, while depriving the victims of the opportunity to even discover information that might bolster their case. See Frontier Ref:, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 704 (10th Cir. 1998) (a litigant cannot use privilege "as both a sword and shield by selectively using the privileged documents to prove a point but then invoking the privilege to prevent an opponent from challenging the assertion."). And Rule 410 in particular blocks such a one-sided approach. Instead, under the Rule, the victims are entitled to show the full course of plea discussions at any ultimate hearing in this case about whether the
+
+Government violated their CVRA rights. And the victims are certainly entitled, at this earlier juncture in the case, to obtain all relevant information that they might ultimately be able to use to disprove the Government's defenses.°
+
+### II. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND EPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY SOME KIND OF "COMMON LAW" PLEA BARGAINING PRIVILEGE.
+
+For all the reasons just given, Rule 410 does not bar the victims from discovering correspondence about how the non-prosecution agreement was reached. Perhaps recognizing the weakness of this argument, Epstein's lawyers present the fallback claim that some sort of "common law" privilege for "plea bargaining" bars discovery into the correspondence. This argument, too, lacks any merit.
+
+## A. The Courts Cannot Create a "Common Law" Privilege That Overrules the Specific Contours of Rule 410.
+
+Epstein's lawyers ask the Court to invent some sort of new "common law" privilege under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Rule 501 does allow federal courts some opportunity to
+
+Additionally, the correspondence may become important if the Court allows Epstein to make a belated entry into the case and raise various defenses. Epstein's legions of lawyers can be expected to advance all manner of legal and factual arguments — even claims that are simply untrue. For example, in a desperate attempt to avoid registering as a convicted sex offender in New York, Epstein recently had his attorneys represent to the New York County Supreme Court that "the prosecutor in Florida conducted a full investigation . . . and determined that the only case that she could present to the grand jury was this [single] indictment for a non registrable offense . . . ." People of New York v. Epstein, No. 30129/2010 (N.Y. Cnty. Sup. Ct. Jan. 18, 2011), hearing transcript at 9 (transcript attached to his pleading as Exhibit A). Epstein's attorneys also — quite astonishingly — stated "there are no real victims" in Florida. Id. And in what can only be described as a false statement to the New York court, Epstein's lawyers stated: "there has been through the course of the last few years some civil ligation . . . involving these matters and we now have sworn testimony in evidence from the complainants themselves disclaiming much of what appears in the [Florida] police report." Id. at 14. Given Epstein's penchant for bending the truth, the victims are entitled to all the correspondence as a safeguard against him advancing similar inaccurate arguments in this case.
+
+create new privileges. The Supreme Court has been clear, however, that courts must "not create and apply an evidentiary privilege unless it "promotes sufficiently important interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence. Inasmuch as testimonial exclusionary rules and privileges contravene the fundamental principle that the public has a right to every man's evidence, any such privilege must be strictly construed." University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O.C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (internal quotations omitted).
+
+While Epstein's lawyers do not cite the controlling legal standard for creating a privilege in this Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit has strongly cautioned that "the rule in this circuit is that a new privilege should only be recognized where there is a `compelling justification.' International Horizons, Inc. v. The Committee of Unsecured &editors, 689 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th Cir.1982) (quoting In re Dinnan, 661 F.2d 426 (5th Cir.1981)). The Eleventh Circuit has explained that this stringent rule arises from the federal courts' disfavor of privileges and from the policy of construing privileges narrowly, so as to protect the "search for truth." 689 F.2d at 1003 (quoting United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)).
+
+Here the Court has strong reason to be skeptical of a new plea bargaining privilege. The transparent purpose behind Epstein's lawyers' "common law" effort is to avoid the specific limitations contained in Rule 410. See Sections I.0 through I.E, supra (discussing language in Rule 410 requiring that the negotiations not have "result[ed] in a plea of guilty," that the negotiations be introduced "against" the defendant in a "proceeding," and that fairness not require "contemporaneous" introduction of all aspects of the negotiations). But the Supreme Court has made clear that courts must be "especially reluctant to recognize a privilege in an area where it appears that Congress has considered the relevant competing concerns but has not provided the privilege itself. The balancing of conflicting interests of this type is particularly a legislative function." University of Pennsylvania v. E.E.O. C., 493 U.S. 182, 189 (1990) (internal quotation omitted). The Court should not use the general provisions of Rule 501 to effectively supersede the detailed limitations in Rule 410.
+
+## B. No "Common Law" Privilege for Plea Bargaining Exists.
+
+Even if the Court were willing to entertain the idea that it should embark on an exercise of "common law" privilege making, no common law privilege exists for plea bargaining. While the defense attorneys frequently allude to "constitutional considerations" that supposedly undergird plea bargaining, the simple fact remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977); accord United States v. Barrentine, 591 F.2d 1069, 1078 (5h Cir. 1979). To be sure, the courts tolerate plea bargaining because it helps reduce the workload of congested criminal dockets. But common law rulemaking should not be used as an excuse to exalt negotiations that merely serve administrative convenience over the far more important search for truth.'
+
+Perhaps recognizing that tenuousness of raising plea bargaining over truth-seeking values, Epstein's lawyers attempt to repackage their proposed privilege as a "common law mediation" privilege. Supplemental Briefing at 16. There is no need for such a privilege in the Southern District of Florida to protect true mediation. A local rule already protects confidentiality in court-annexed mediation. See Local Rule 16.2(G)(2). Epstein's lawyers,
+
+To be sure, as the Government points out, effective defense counsel should always explore plea bargaining opportunities. See Gov't Resp. at 7 (citing Padilla v. Kentucky, 130 S.C.t 1473, 1485 (2010)). But this is a far cry from proving there is a "right" to plea bargaining or that protecting plea bargaining opportunities is more important than, for example, protecting congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights conferred in the CVRA.
+
+however, do not cite this rule, because they know their plea bargaining discussions with government attorneys fall outside its protections.
+
+Epstein's lawyers also implicitly concede that there is no well-established "common law" support for a mediation privilege, as they are able to cite only a smattering of cases (three in total over the last 32 years) recognizing such a privilege. None of these cases are from the Eleventh Circuit, which (unlike other jurisdictions) requires a strong showing of "compelling" justification before a new privilege can be created. International Horizons, Inc. v. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors, 689 F.2d 996, 1004 (11th Cir.1982) ("compelling" justification required to interfere with the search for truth in federal cases). Moreover, none of the three cases cited involve plea bargaining in criminal cases — presumably because that subject is already directly covered in detail in Rule 410. Finally, these cases involve situations where a court thought it important to create "confidentiality and trust between participants in a mediation proceeding." Epstein's Supplemental Briefing at 17 (citing Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164, 1175 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (emphasis added)). Here, of course, the parties to the plea discussion (Epstein and the Government) are attempting not to create a privilege between themselves, but rather to block third parties harmed by their actions from discovering what they have done.
+
+Make no mistake about the sweeping position that Epstein's attorneys are advancing: They claim that the defense attorneys and the Government can conspire between themselves to arrange for secret plea discussions in violation of congressionally-mandated crime victims' rights in the CVRA and then block the crime victims from obtaining the information that would prove the violation that has happened. Such a privilege would, among other things, directly conflict
+
+with the statutory command of Congress that crime victims must be "treated with fairness," 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8), a statute which obviously trumps any claim by a convicted sex offender that his efforts to work out a secret plea deal with the Government is somehow entitled to greater protection. For all these reasons, the Court should reject the defense attorney's suggestion that it should invent a new "mediation privilege" to apply to the plea bargaining discussions in this case.
+
+## III. THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE DOES NOT COVER CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE ATTORNEYS.
+
+The Government's response to the defense attorney's supplemental briefing (DE 100) itself raises new issues about whether the victims will be able to obtain the correspondence (or, indeed, any information from the Government). After the Court ruled that the victims were entitled to discover relevant information (DE 99 at 10), the victims asked the Government to voluntarily provide them with at least some documents. In response, however, the Government told the victims that all of the relevant information — including presumably the correspondence — is privileged from production and that the Court will need to determine, "on a document-bydocument basis" (Gov't Resp. at I) whether any of the materials in the Government's possession falls outside the work product doctrine. The Court should reject the Government's sweeping claim that all correspondence (and other information) is protected by the work product doctrine.
+
+### A. The Court Should Now Grant the Victim's Still-Pending Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Suppress Relevant Evidence.
+
+In its order allowing discovery, the Court "reserve[d] ruling" (DE 99 at11) on the victims' Motion for an Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence. The victims respectfully renew their motion (DE 50). Of course, if the Court decided to grant this motion, it would obviate the need for any kind of "document-by-document" review of the relevant information that the Government continues to withhold.
+
+### B. The CVRA Requires the Government to Work Cooperatively to Protect the Victims' Rights and Thus Bars the Government from Interposing an Adversarial Work Product Defense.
+
+The Government argues that the work-product doctrine it is asserting prevents the victims from obtaining any information relevant to their CVRA claim. In doing so, the Government fundamentally misunderstands its role under the CVRA. The Government seems to believe that it stands in an adversarial posture to the victims and therefore it can simply interpose the same sorts of litigation barriers it would deploy against a criminal defendant seeking discovery of Government documents. But the CVRA does not place victims and the Government on opposite sides of CVRA enforcement. Instead, the Act obligates the Government to work together with victims to enforce CVRA rights. In such a cooperative world, the Government cannot erect a "work product" barrier to CVRA enforcement.
+
+The CVRA specifically directs Justice Department prosecutors to make their "best efforts" to protect victims' rights. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(I) commands that "[officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the . . . prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims notified of, and accorded, the rights described in [the CVRA]" (emphases added). Underscoring this "best efforts" obligation, the CVRA even allows prosecutors to bring their own actions to enforce victims' CVRA rights. Title 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(1) provides: "The crime victims . . and the attorney for the Government may assert the rights described in [the CVRA]" (emphasis
+
+added). Of course, the attorney for the Government can never bring an action on behalf of a criminal defendant. Thus, unlike when they prosecute criminal defendants, Justice Department prosecutors are statutorily obligated to work with crime victims.
+
+In light of the fact that Congress requires prosecutors and victims to cooperate to protect CVRA rights, in cases (such as this one) seeking to enforce CVRA rights the Government cannot raise adversarial work-product objections under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Those rules govern the antagonistic relationship inherent in a criminal prosecution. With regard to discovery, the rules only cover discovery "upon a defendant's request." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1) (emphasis added). The discovery rules allow a criminal defendant to obtain limited information from the Government, including specifically his confession, his prior criminal record, tangible objects (i.e., contraband or other evidence), and reports of scientific tests. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)-(F). Against that backdrop, the rule cited by the Government — Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2) — prevents a criminal defendant from forcing disclosure of "internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case." In this case, though, it is not a criminal "defendant" trying to obtain information in an effort to obtain an acquittal, but rather plaintiff crime victims seeking information to enforce their CVRA rights. Accordingly, by its plain terms, Rule 16 simply doesn't apply. And even if it somehow did apply, it only covers documents made "in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case" — i.e., documents about the "case" in which the discovery request is made (here Jane Doe #1 and #2 v. United States). Here, the victims are seeking (among other things) correspondence about an earlier case — i.e., documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein investigation and non-prosecution in which the
+
+Government violated their CVRA rights. For this reason as well, the criminal rule simply doesn't apply.
+
+Perhaps recognizing that it will not be able to avoid producing documents under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Government immediately cites the Federal Rules of Civil Procedural as well. Gov't Resp. at 5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B)). But if the Government is going to seek the civil rules' protections, it also needs to satisfy those rules' burdens. For example, despite repeated requests from the victims spanning several years, the Government has yet to even make any initial disclosures under the civil rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(1)(A) ("a party must, without await awaiting a discovery request, provided to the other parties" various things relevant to the case). The victims long ago made their initial disclosures to the Government under the civil rules, but the Government continues to refuse to reciprocate. If the Government is going to maintain that the civil rules operate to give it certain discovery protections, it must satisfy all of its discovery obligations as well.
+
+In any event, as with the criminal rules, the civil rules are designed to create protections in an adversarial setting. The rule cited by the Government — Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A) provides that "ordinarily . . . a party may not discover documents and tangible things that are prepared in anticipation of litigation or for trial by or for another party or its representative . . . ." This privilege "does not exist to protect a confidential relationship, but rather to promote the adversary system by safeguarding the fruits of an attorney's trial preparations from the discovery attempts of the opponent." U.S. v. American TeL and Tel. Co., 642 F.2d 1285, 1299 (D.C. Cir. 1980) (emphasis added). While the victims have listed the government in the caption of this enforcement action, they certainly do not regard the Government as their "opponent" — and under
+
+the regime created by the CVRA, prosecutors and victims are not "opponents" that would create the proper circumstances for a work product privilege. As explained above, the CVRA requires the Government to use its "best efforts" not to oppose crime victims but rather to "accord" them their rights under the CVRA. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1).
+
+Underscoring the conclusion that work product does not apply is the nature of the correspondence at issue in these pleadings. The correspondence is between prosecutors and defense attorneys negotiating a plea arrangement. It was, at most, prepared in anticipation of a criminal prosecution being filed by the Government against Epstein — in other words, a contemplated criminal prosecution that would have been styled United States v. Epstein. Whatever work product claim would exist in that case, it does not extend to this — entirely separate — civil case. See Hendrick v. Avis Rent A Car System, Inc., 916 F.Supp. 256, 259 (W.D.N.Y.,1996) (no work product existed because "the documents sought 'were not prepared in anticipation of this particular litigation' (citing Bartley v. Isztzu Motors, 158 F.R.D. 165, 167 (D.Colo.1994) (emphasis added)). For all these reasons, the Court should give effect to the cooperative structure created in the CVRA and flatly reject the Government's suggestion that it can interpose an adversarial work product claim to block the victims from discovering correspondence with Epstein's defense attorneys.
+
+### C. If the Court Allows the Government to Raise Work Product Claims, then the Government Must Prepare a Detailed Privilege Log and Bear the Burden of Establishing Its Position on a Document-by-Document Basis — a Burden It Cannot Meet With Regard to the Correspondence.
+
+If the Government is allowed to raise a work product claim, the procedures associated with such claims are familiar. As the Government concedes, it would be required to prove protection on a "document-by-document" basis. Gov't Resp. at 1. The way such documentspecific issues are litigated is through a privilege log. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 26(b)(5)(A)(ii). The Court's Local Rules spell out requirements for a privilege log. The Government should describe (among other things) the type of document, the general subject matter of the document, the date of the document, and the author and addressee of the document or correspondence. Local Rule 26(g)(3). The privilege log must be detailed enough to allow the victims to respond to the Government's assertion of privilege. See, e.g., Avgoustis v. Shinseki, 639 F.3d 1340, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("privilege logs were insufficiently detailed when they merely stated "Fax: Whistleblower article" or "Summary of Enclosures" and justified the privilege by characterizing the documents as "attorney-client communication[s]" without explanation.") (citing United States v. Constr. Prods. Research, Inc., 73 F.3d 464, 473 (2d Cir.1996)).8
+
+Once the Government has cataloged the documents in its privilege log, it then bears the burden of proving the applicability of the privilege. See In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6ih Cir. 2009); Boogie v. McClure, 332 F.3d 1347, 1358 (11th Cir. 2003). The victims will, of course, later respond in detail to any specific assertions the Government makes, But it is obvious that the Government cannot assert a valid work product privilege for any of the correspondence it carried on with defense attorneys for Epstein.
+
+8 Similarly, if the defense attorneys are allowed to intervene in this case to assert privilege, they must then provide a privilege log on a document-by-document basis.
+
+9 In briefly responding here to arguments raised by the Government, the victims are not waiving any responses they might later make to specifically-asserted work product claims. In particular, on a document-by-document basis, the victims reserve their right to argue that the documents are not work product materials and, in any event, that they have a "substantial need for the materials to prepare [their] case and cannot, without undue hardship, obtain the[] substantial equivalent by other means." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)(ii).
+
+For starters, the issue of whether the correspondence was somehow protected against discovery was thoroughly litigated by Epstein more than a year ago. This Court rejected Epstein's arguments against disclosure. Jane Doe v. Epstein, doc. #462, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-ICAM (Feb. 4, 2010).10 That ruling by the Court then is, to say the least, persuasive authority on the Government's identical argument here.
+
+Moreover, correspondence with an adversary in a criminal prosecution is not the kind of confidential information that is even arguably covered by work product. Work product covers only "reports, memoranda, and other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government . . . in connection with . . . prosecuting the case." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2) (emphasis added); see also Fed. R. Civ. 26(b)(3)(A). Correspondence between prosecutors and defense attorneys is simply not an "internal" matter that is subject to a work product protection.
+
+Correspondence with an adversary also waives any work-product coverage. "The privilege derived from the work-product doctrine is not absolute. Like other qualified privileges, it may be waived." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 239 (1975). "Disclosure to an adversary waives the work product protection as to items actually disclosed, even where disclosure occurs in settlement." In re Chrysler Motors Corp. Overnight Evaluation Program Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir. 1988). Thus, "[c]ourts will imply waiver when a party
+
+In Jane Doe v. Epstein, doc. #462, Case No. 9:08-CV-80119-ICAM (Feb. 4, 2010) (denying defense objection to Request for Production #10), the Court ordered Epstein to produce "all correspondence between you and your attorneys and state or federal law enforcement or prosecutors." It now appears to the victims that, in clear contravention of this Court's discovery orders, Epstein's attorneys secretly withheld significant correspondence involving plea discussions by several of Epstein's attorneys, including Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Ken Starr. If this is true, as part of any privilege log they file, the defense attorneys should explain why they secretly and improperly withheld this information.
+
+claiming the protection has voluntarily disclosed work product to a party not covered by the work-product doctrine." United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008).
+
+Perhaps recognizing the difficulty inherent in its position under these well-recognized general principles, the Government claims that the court cases have been "inconsistent" on whether communications during plea bargaining waive work product privilege. Gov't Resp. at 8. This is simply untrue, as a review of the relevant cases quickly demonstrates.
+
+The Government concedes that there is circuit court authority that defendants' disclosure of work product materials to the government during plea bargaining waives all work product protection. The Government acknowledges, for example, that Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department during an investigation "waived the work-product doctrine as against all other adversaries." Id. at 1429. This holding makes sense, because it is hard to understand how a litigant can claim confidentiality in materials it has otherwise disclosed.
+
+The Government claims, however, that this common sense conclusion has been rejected by the First Circuit, which (according to the Government) has "held that a company may maintain even its . . . work-product privilege in materials that it discloses to the U.S. Attorney's Office during pre-indictment presentations and ongoing plea negotiations." Gov't Resp. at 8 (citing In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (1st Cir. 2003)). But the case the Government cites stands for no such broad proposition. Rather, that case involved a situation where for two years the Government had been demanding that XYZ Corporation should waive its privileges and produce various documents
+
+relevant to a government investigation; the company "steadfastly had refused." Id. at 26. The company ultimately proffered some of the documents that the Government had been seeking. But the company's counsel voluntarily produced those documents under a "clear and explicit" reservation of all privileges. Id. at 27. And the reservation was "accepted by the government's consistent course of conduct," id. at 28, which included treating the documents as protected. Thus, in that case, there was simply no conduct from which a waiver could be inferred, as the Government had agreed through its course of conduct that the protection existed. Here, of course, there is not such course of conduct and, in any event, the victims have never "accepted" that the correspondence is protected.
+
+Moreover, in an effort to show the Courts of Appeals are inconsistent, the Government pretends to have universally surveyed caselaw with its citations to just these two allegedly "inconsistent" cases. In fact, the clear bulk of circuit authority has clearly and straightforwardly rejected arguments that the U.S. Attorney's Office advances here (and has frequently done so at the request of the Government). See, e.g., In re Qwest Communications, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179, 1192-1201 (10th Cir. 2006) (company's disclosure of documents to the SEC during criminal investigation waived work product protections); Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp. Billing Practices Litigation, 293 F.3d 289, 302 (6th Cir. 2002) (attorney client/work product privilege was "never designed to protect conversations between a client and the Government i.e., an adverse party — rather, it pertains only to conversations between the client and his or her attorney. . . purpose [of attorney-client privilege] is to encourage full and frank communication
+
+between attorneys and their clients and thereby promote broader public interests in the observance of law and administration of justice. Nowhere amongst these reasons [for protection] is the ability to `talk candidly with the Government.'"); United States v. MIT., 129 F.3d 681, 687 (1st Cir. 1997) ("the prevailing rule that disclosure to an adversary, real or potential, forfeits work product protection"); In re Steinhardt Partners, L.P., 9 F.3d 230, 235 (2nd Cir. 1993) ("voluntary disclosure of work product to an adversary waives the privilege as to other parties"); In re Chrysler Motors Overnight Evaluation Litigation, 860 F.2d 844, 846-47 (8h 1988) (defendant company's disclosure of computer tape to class counsel during settlement negotiated waived work product when tape sought by government as part of criminal case); In re Sealed Case, 676 F.2d 793, 824-25 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (production of documents during settlement discussions with the SEC waived work product protection as to grand jury).
+
+For all these reasons, the Court should reject the Government's claim that its correspondence with Epstein's attorneys during plea negotiations somehow is confidential work product immune from discovery.
+
+## CONCLUSION
+
+For all the foregoing reasons, if the Court allows the defense attorneys to intervene in this case, the Court should rule (1) that Rule 410 does not prevent discovery of plea negotiation correspondence; (2) there is no basis for inventing a new "common law" privilege preventing discovery of the correspondence; and (3) the correspondence is not confidential "work product" of the Government and is discoverable by the victims in this case.
+
+DATED: October 10. 2011
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah
+
+Salt Lake City, UT 84112
+
+Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+The foregoing document was served on October 10, 2011, on the following using the
+
+Court's CM/ECF system:
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorneys
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Attorneys for the Government
+
+Roy Black, Esq.
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A.
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+Miami, FL 33131
+
+[REDACTED]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b0d7a6f9fa7d8848cc9ee684d2d5eafcef2f32d6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205728/EFTA00205728.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1418 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205728.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 27,
+ "chars": 49783,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.09,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 100.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 100.44
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 127.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 127.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN \nSUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, \nAND JAY LEFKOWITZ",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 264.06000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.2490234375,
+ 264.06000000000006
+ ],
+ [
+ 539.2490234375,
+ 306.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 72.216,
+ 306.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND \nEPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY FEDERAL \nRULE OF EVIDENCE 410.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 524.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.3599853515625,
+ 524.88
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.3599853515625,
+ 569.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 569.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. RULE 410 DOES NOT BAR DISCOVERY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 662.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.435791015625,
+ 662.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 541.435791015625,
+ 679.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 679.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. EPSTEIN IS COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED FROM RELITIGATING \nTHE APPLICABILITY OF RULE 410.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 237.32999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.068,
+ 237.32999999999998
+ ],
+ [
+ 544.068,
+ 265.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 265.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "C. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE PLEA \nDISCUSSIONS LEAD TO A GUILTY PLEA.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.010498046875,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.010498046875,
+ 114.363037109375
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.87599999999998,
+ 114.363037109375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "D. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE THE VICTIMS WILL \nUSE THE CORRESPONDENCE AGAINST (IF ANYONE) THE \nGOVERNMENT.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 332.09999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.4701538085938,
+ 332.09999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.4701538085938,
+ 375.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 105.26399999999998,
+ 375.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "E. RULE 410 DOES NOT APPLY HERE BECAUSE OTHER STATEMENTS \nWILL BE INTRODUCED AND, IN FAIRNESS, THE \nCORRESPONDENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS WELL.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 277.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2659301757812,
+ 277.02
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2659301757812,
+ 320.85357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 320.85357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT AND \nEPSTEIN IS NOT PROTECTED FROM DISCOVERY BY SOME KIND \nOF \"COMMON LAW\" PLEA BARGAINING PRIVILEGE.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2346801757812,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2346801757812,
+ 209.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 209.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. The Courts Cannot Create a \"Common Law\" Privilege That Overrules the Specific \nContours of Rule 410.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 86.904,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.5042724609375,
+ 359.64
+ ],
+ [
+ 537.5042724609375,
+ 389.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 86.904,
+ 389.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. No \"Common Law\" Privilege for Plea Bargaining Exists.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 86.904,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.0050964355469,
+ 193.59
+ ],
+ [
+ 403.0050964355469,
+ 209.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 86.904,
+ 209.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. THE WORK PRODUCT DOCTRINE DOES NOT COVER \nCORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PROSECUTORS AND DEFENSE \nATTORNEYS.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.399169921875,
+ 249.48
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.399169921875,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.652,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. The Court Should Now Grant the Victim's Still-Pending Motion for an \nOrder Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Suppress Relevant \nEvidence.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.214599609375,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.214599609375,
+ 623.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 623.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. The CVRA Requires the Government to Work Cooperatively to Protect the \nVictims' Rights and Thus Bars the Government from Interposing an \nAdversarial Work Product Defense.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.214599609375,
+ 167.67000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.214599609375,
+ 209.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 122.4,
+ 209.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "C. If the Court Allows the Government to Raise Work Product Claims, then the \nGovernment Must Prepare a Detailed Privilege Log and Bear the Burden of \nEstablishing Its Position on a Document-by-Document Basis \u2014 a Burden It \nCannot Meet With Regard to the Correspondence.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 123.62400000000002,
+ 554.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2120971679688,
+ 554.04
+ ],
+ [
+ 543.2120971679688,
+ 610.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 123.62400000000002,
+ 610.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CONCLUSION",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 469.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.43621826171875,
+ 469.79999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.43621826171875,
+ 485.9830322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 261.936,
+ 485.9830322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.396,
+ 84.24
+ ],
+ [
+ 387.396,
+ 98.82
+ ],
+ [
+ 222.15599999999998,
+ 98.82
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 54
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 63
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205728"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9e6729137848ea241c19f4117ffbda8d0ae787ad
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+Subject: Non-Prosecution Agreement re Epstein Case
+
+Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2011 22:05:43 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: Fully\_executed\_NPA.pdf
+
+Sony to inundate you. I now understand a bit better whapecial Counsel to the U.S. Attorney, who is also working on the victims' suit) wants to discuss. He wants to discuss how the Non-Prosecution Agreement may limit your ability to prosecute some of Epstein's crimes.
+
+I have attached a copy of the Non-Prosecution Agreement for you to review, so you will know what we are talking about. If you could give us 15-25 minutes tomorrow, it would be most appreciated. Ed is free between 9:00 and 2:30.
+
+<>
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..728ca78598d557869ac3e343548e690d16b64262
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/EFTA00205755.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205755.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 703,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.51,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205755"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e950c528fcf828668cf75ca2e24d6444ba8fce4d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205755/_page_0_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:d7bfa106a4a187d179019f59de39c4b96fd93d1ed78842dc99843235bd57c79e
+size 8719
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f47b4b00a3c0b2c96aee3ad28bb84c72975c1ab0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.md
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@
+Subject: Question from Roy Black
+
+Date: Fri, 02 Sep 2011 02:12:09 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Hi Dexter — I guess one of us should respond to the question about Epstein intervening. What are your thoughts?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3fc7aa64c1f63b1a4e92edf7b92828eb3237d7f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205756/EFTA00205756.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205756.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 204,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.34,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205756"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..86e53e0a85f7f7aae5bd963179aa4169b3242796
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.md
@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+
+
+**Subject:** Doe [REDACTED] USAO
+
+**Date:** Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:28:18 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Inline-
+Images:** ATT00001
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+We are filing a motion seeking limited intervention by Jeffrey Epstein to protect disclosure & use of the plea negotiations. Do you object to Mr. Epstein's limited intervention? Please let me know. Thanks,
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e3f321e591bfca7f78e1c0eb938c552844da40af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/EFTA00205757.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205757.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 867,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 3.66,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_62.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_69.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205757"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_62.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_62.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f604520d102cfcc3b8191b64b1138690addc5e80
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_62.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:dd0a00846697d1f424ad6e7b2949562aa879ac08e39aa22e1ca414cc3d4dcd08
+size 7713
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_69.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_69.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f4dbf63a56493a8d90f16dccfc7112c2575a0b1e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205757/_page_0_Picture_69.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:da09efdc5ab94c8a4e4082afaca7240e4d380fd1973157d5c94c45baca2504b5
+size 4963
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..634c291a2b8d0b366b0155bd9e3fba9b87cf1a19
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+To: "'brad@pathtojustice.com"' , "12Black@RoyBlack.com".
+
+Subject: Jane Does I United States
+
+Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 12:28:35 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Dear Brad and Roy:
+
+I was in Bogota for 10 days where my phone didn't work and I had very limited access to email so I have a lot of catching up to do. Do you have any objection to a ten day extension of time to respond to Mr Epstein's motion?
+
+Thank you
+
+sannomporrs
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4cfe196a1134c4cc718d2bba54a0bf54a4d641ce
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205758/EFTA00205758.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205758.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 466,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.49,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205758"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8ac2339b564322b2fd8a03d2841b443140ffa517
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.md
@@ -0,0 +1,27 @@
+To:'
+
+Subject: Re: Jane Does United States
+
+Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:33:31 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Of course not. Talk to you soon.
+
+From:
+
+To: Brad Edwards
+
+To:
+
+Subject: Jane Does I United States
+
+Sent: Sep 16, 2011 8:28 AM
+
+Dear Brad and Roy:
+
+I was in Bogota for 10 days where my phone didn't work and I had very limited access to email so I have a lot of catching up to do. Do you have any objection to a ten day extension of time to respond to Mr Epstein's motion?
+
+Thank you
+
+Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..897fb97b9c2fbd568b0452acdfcff819244dbb43
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205759/EFTA00205759.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205759.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 514,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.76,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205759"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ce3a8ce46f986ccb67fd61684e85795db8cc0439
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.md
@@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
+To: ' " < (USAFLS)" < >,
+
+Subject: Re: Jane Does I United States
+
+Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:21:41 +0000
+
+Importance Normal
+
+I have no objection.
+
+>>> ' Dear Brad and Roy: (USAFLS)" < > 9/16/2011 8:28 AM >>>
+
+I was in Bogota for 10 days where my phone didn't work and I had very limited access to email so I have a lot of catching up to do. Do you have any objection to a ten day extension of time to respond to Mr Epstein's motion?
+
+Thank , AUSA
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a1bd57b81e71f73f76aa14b54214ea26c7823096
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205760/EFTA00205760.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205760.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 445,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.48,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205760"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8aa178db36520ccffd544f397d83d1251962a7d5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+
+
+**Subject:** RE: Re:
+
+**Date:** Mon, 26 Sep 2011 20:02:17 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+---
+
+Nobody knows. At the very first hearing -- 3 years ago -- the judge said the most he could do is order us outside to "confer."
+
+
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 3:56 PM
+
+Subject: Re:
+
+What if the court disagrees and says we violated cvra - what's the remedy? A declaratory judgment? He can't set the np aside and he definitely can't get money.
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+Sent: Mon Sep 26 15:54:03 2011
+
+Subject: RE:
+
+Setting aside the non-pros and prosecuting him as though the Non-pros had never been signed.
+
+
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+Subject: Re:
+
+Suggest what thing?
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+No. He already served his sentence in state court and performed all his other obligations under the Non-Pros (including paying damages to 30-some girls). I argued it would be a Due Process violation to even suggest such a thing.
+
+
+
+-----Original Message-----
+
+
+
+Subject: Re:
+
+Have we conceded that a showing that we violated the CVRA would justify reopening/setting aside the nonpros?
+
+
+
+Sent: Mon Sep 26 15:23:17 2011
+
+Subject: RE:
+
+Ideally to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein and then to somehow convince us (probably through public pressure via the press) to prosecute him.
+
+
+
+
+
+Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 2:22 PM
+
+
+
+What is the relief jane does want in the cvra case?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..356c86f9f375e3350f81f1f1f9e8e9d19d500df1
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/EFTA00205761.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,102 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205761.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1689,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.46,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_77.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_82.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_49.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_51.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_54.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_58.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_59.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_61.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 18
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 21
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205761"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_77.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_77.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d9612f7f71ae600013e5622b6e6cd9c30a83ce10
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_77.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b0bf09d3c134f4f857663773be1bdd25e0eeadd8b8562538aee8240f9adbae3d
+size 5330
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_82.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_82.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7a2bd3f07deea238ce1485d9ad93c70b2d84f076
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_82.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:0a186c15bb6414867a9f000b7876ce3effdcf6d91f5b053a29950392267f2f09
+size 3255
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..61e89bc29dc9a4d0e0dd6dc7efb461436ec190ed
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:7f9ff08ff1cbdfca00ca7bd952ee1908296f8f0b525595bf149a105e9f819de5
+size 3214
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_49.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_49.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83232278e34813ea8adbaf4dea526b1bafb423ab
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_49.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:b032f4ac57be79592681572cd18b0e12d6934b71841b4c8051ffcd86b63699cc
+size 5380
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_51.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_51.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..349a6fdcef9e18f5f73a0f019606fcb5cb8b2b8f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_51.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4dba727a925c20078ff141767e2521c9f806c197cbf3f2be257ac9a77e1abedd
+size 2361
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_54.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_54.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fddd22478d2718ebd9f6904f1e50328fbd31d11a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_54.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:aeb1a2c29bc8abf3639efa0e3ad4113d07e7810dbc08581f2860a4a834a656cc
+size 5144
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_58.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_58.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1d47007f6cc6ec4d0916989b9fbe95680b672a2b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_58.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:74a7e7fa7dc47ee10709e60f92a865acdd312054626e81566e43f3cbc4c6344f
+size 3244
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_59.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_59.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..519bbfafaa8ee53d79fb02d14d37592ca16b3da9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_59.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f21fa5bc3f16b729ccc816802392c6d52f39127d37d371f62d90aaba2cd75df5
+size 2973
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_61.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_61.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e951011b16d0a5cf0dd9b7e850d5a4ea2b93872c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205761/_page_1_Picture_61.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:c1ce5fe92a6d21917ddde02867193d51e483a4f444deeba9fbc1e9bb19b17349
+size 4680
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..66d0046d10d49e08cf176468685ecb528c5b2fc9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.md
@@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
+
+JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners,
+
+v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
+
+### UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ ]DE94]
+
+The United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby files this Response to the Supplemental Briefing of Attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE94). The Court asked the United States to address the Intervenor Attorneys' argument that special concerns or rules should apply to the disclosure and use of documents prepared and exchanged during plea negotiations between the Intervenors (on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein) and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Intervenor Attorneys seek to preclude the unsealing of certain documents already filed with the Court as well as the use of their contents, and the discovery and use of additional plea negotiation documents and information.
+
+For the reasons set forth herein, the United States agrees that the Petitioners are attempting to use plea negotiations "against" Jeffrey Epstein, in violation of the Federal Rules of Evidence, and that the work product privilege is not automatically waived by disclosure in the context of confidential plea negotiations. Thus, the Court must determine, on a document-by-document basis, whether a document contains attorney work produce and, if so, whether that work product privilege has been waived. The United States further agrees that, in light of the Supreme Court's guidance on the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel, the protections provided to civil mediation and arbitration proceedings should extend to confidential plea negotiations where a non-party seeks to use statements made during those negotiations against either party.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+The Court is very familiar with this matter, having handled the civil suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to the Non-Prosecution Agreement-and this actions filed by Jane Does #1 and #2 against the United States. For purposes of this Supplemental Briefing, the relevant facts are that, through the civil litigation between the Jane Does and Jeffrey Epstein, the Jane Does obtained portions of correspondence and draft agreements between counsel for Jeffrey Epstein and counsel for the United States that were exchanged during the course of confidential a plea negotiations. To the knowledge of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger — have been redacted. The Intervenor Attorneys ask that the Court order that the Jane Does cannot use the unredacted portions and deny their motion to use those documents in support of their claims. a The Intervenor Attorneys further ask that the Jane Does be barred from delving further into the confidential plea negotiations.
+
+At the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court heard oral argument from Attorney Black, who suggested that the ban on discovering and using plea negotiations was broader than what is simply stated in Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The Court ordered supplemental briefing, and the Intervenor Attorneys have raised a number of arguments in their supplemental briefing: (I) that the plea negotiations may not be used against Mr. Epstein pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 410 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0; (2) that because the Jane Does are seeking inadmissible evidence, they bear a burden of showing a proper basis for discovery; (3) that the plea negotiations are irrelevant because the Jane Does are not entitled to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement; (4) that the documents and information should be privileged under a common law plea negotiations privilege. In addition, in its initial briefing and at oral argument, the Intervenors argued that the communications were governed by the attorney work-product privilege.
+
+# ARGUMENT
+
+### A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the Plea Negotiation Documents Against Jeffrey Epstein; However, This Argument Is Premature.
+
+With regard to the Intervenors' first argument, the United States agrees that the Jane Does have made clear that their ultimate goal is to have the Non-Prosecution Agreement set aside and to have Jeffrey Epstein prosecuted. Thus, although the United States is the named Respondent, the Petitioner have made clear that their true target is Jeffrey Epstein: "The victims very specifically advised Epstein more than one year ago that they would be filing U.S. Attorney correspondence in this case in an effort to invalidate his non-prosecutionagreement." (Pets.' Resp. to Epstein Mot'n for Limited Intervention, DE96 at 1.) As such, the Intervenors correctly note that "any statement made in the course of plea discussions with an attorney for the prosecuting authority [the U.S. Attorney's Office] which do not result in a plea of guilty" cannot be used against Jeffrey Epstein. Fed. R. Evid. 410(4).
+
+On today's date, September 26, 2011, the Court granted in part the Petitioners' Motion seeking a finding of violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"), but deferred ruling on the merits pending completion of discovery and denied the Petitioners' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted as True. ( See DE99 at 13-14.)
+
+Accordingly, it is premature to speculate as to how the Petitioners will try to "use" the information currently within their possession. The United States suggests, for the reasons set forth below, that the parties enter into a Protective Order governing the use and filing of such material until such time as the matter is ripe.
+
+The Intervenors' second argument also is premature. In it, they argue that because they anticipate that the Jane Does will seek the discovery of inadmissible plea negotiations, the Court should made some sort of ruling requiring the Jane Does to make a showing of a proper basis for the discovery. As noted above, today the Court issued an Order wherein it allowed the Petitioners limited discovery via document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office. (DE99 at 11.) Rather than impose a preliminary restriction, the United States recommends that the Court require Petitioners to serve a copy of all discovery requests on the Intervenors so that they may interpose any objections and have those objections ruled upon prior to the United States serving any of its responses.
+
+# C. The Attorney Work-Product Privilege Applies to These Communications. F3
+
+In a federal criminal case, the parties are prohibited from obtaining via discovery "reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigation or prosecuting the case," and "reports, memoranda, or other documents made by the defendant, or the defendant's attorney or agent, during the case's investigation or defense[.]" Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2), (b)(2)(A). In a federal civil case, the parties are prohibited from obtaining via discovery documents and tangible things that were prepared in preparation for litigation (including previous litigation), especially "mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories of a party's attorney or other representative concerning the litigation." Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(B).
+
+1.
+
+s the motion to intervene, Movant Epstein and his counsel must expect to be subject to discovery at least as to his claims of privilege, on which he bears the burden of proof.
+
+Respectfully submitted,
+
+WIFREDO A. FERRER
+
+UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
+
+
+
+[Redacted]
+
+[Redacted]
+[Redacted] with the
+[Redacted] to receive
+
+Clerk
+notice
+
+Brad Edwards, Esq.,
+
+1 [Redacted] C
+
+2 [Redacted]
+
+H [Redacted]
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+[Redacted]
+
+[Redacted]
+
+[Redacted]
+
+Attorneys for Jane Doe # 1 and Jane Doe # 2
+
+Roy Black, Esq.
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+[Redacted]
+
+
+
+
+
+Attorneys for Intervenors Jeffrey Epstein, Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz
+
+fine United States uses the term "confidential" plea negotiations as a term of art. By definition, all plea negotiations are confidential and, pursuant to Rule II, are not to be made part of the Court record until a final agreement is reached and a guilty plea is entered.
+
+Pursuant to S.D. Fla. Local Rule 5.4(c), this would require that DE52 be destroyed or returned to counsel for the Jane Does and that DE63 and DE64 be destroyed or returned to counsel for the United States and that DE48 remain in the Court file only in its redacted form.
+
+F3The Intervenors also argue that the Court should find that the documents and information are irrelevant because the Petitioners are not entitled to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In the Court's Order of September 26, 2011, granting in part the Petitioners' Motion for finding violations of the CVRA, the Court did not address the United States' argument that there is no remedy available for the Petitioners due in part to their failure to seek a prompt resolution of the case. However, in light of the Court's Order, it would seem that this issue is better resolved in a Motion for Reconsideration or on appeal of that ruling rather than in this Supplemental Briefing. Accordingly, the Intervenors' third argument is not addressed herein.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..97ed590548d44d0460cc0f45bc6cb23ad761f238
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/EFTA00205763.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,352 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205763.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 5,
+ "chars": 9597,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 84.5,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_2_Picture_9.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg",
+ "_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA \nCase No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.7632751464844,
+ 31.589999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.7632751464844,
+ 74.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 74.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL \nBRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF \nROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ ]DE94]",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 152.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.599365234375,
+ 152.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 494.599365234375,
+ 195.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 117.50399999999999,
+ 195.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.876,
+ 548.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.04595947265625,
+ 548.3700000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.04595947265625,
+ 563.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.876,
+ 563.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ARGUMENT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.6179504394531,
+ 360.45000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 344.6179504394531,
+ 376.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 267.44399999999996,
+ 376.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "A. The Petitioners Appear to Be Seeking to Use the Plea Negotiation Documents Against \nJeffrey Epstein; However, This Argument Is Premature.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.4146728515625,
+ 378.27
+ ],
+ [
+ 581.4146728515625,
+ 407.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 407.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "B. The Intervenors' Objection to Discovery Before Any Has Been Served Is Premature.",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 25.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 552.8165283203125,
+ 25.92
+ ],
+ [
+ 552.8165283203125,
+ 41.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 41.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "C. The Attorney Work-Product Privilege Applies to These Communications. F3",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 225.4202880859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.63946533203125,
+ 225.4202880859375
+ ],
+ [
+ 510.63946533203125,
+ 243.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.81600000000002,
+ 243.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 78
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205763"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_2_Picture_9.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_2_Picture_9.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..cb2a94ef1a832d1243b0bd4a3de1181f7c4ddb1a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_2_Picture_9.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9322df9644ecf6b445601f785e8ad669ed6108e27cb824b3d4b30cb9821621cd
+size 12056
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d98d36a01c4cb7b82ec5f5d67d79e858578b8ed6
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_0.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9590bbb489241d2b10d6333a837f3ddcb747b49d88b80bae2aad41ad6398fc96
+size 3325
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2fc9040ac179500ea737f9dbd5db2a708ce30c0f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205763/_page_4_Picture_1.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ae48f84cb39f473649818dbc8f882fc643ae5d11cdcb210ae0a58580e9230da3
+size 3833
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6980025886376a997106fba954aad4790c160480
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.md
@@ -0,0 +1,69 @@
+**To:** "[REDACTED] >
+
+**Subject:** RE: RE:
+
+**Date:** Mon, 26 Sep 2011 19:54:03 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+---
+
+Setting aside the non-pros and prosecuting him as though the Non-pros had never been signed.
+
+
+
+-----Original Message -----
+
+**From:** [REDACTED] (USAFLS)
+
+**Sent:** Monday, September 26, 2011 3:52 PM
+
+**To:** [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED] (USAFLS)
+
+**Subject:** Re:
+
+Suggest what thing?
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+**From:** [REDACTED] (USAFLS) <[REDACTED]>
+
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Sent:** Mon Sep 26 15:48:05 2011
+
+**Subject:** RE:
+
+No. He already served his sentence in state court and performed all his other obligations under the Non-Pros (including paying damages to 30-some girls). I argued it would be a Due Process violation to even suggest such a thing.
+
+
+
+-----Original Message -----
+
+**From:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Sent:** [REDACTED]
+
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** Re:
+
+Have we conceded that a showing that we violated the CVRA would justify reopening/setting aside the nonpros?
+
+**From:** [REDACTED]
+
+Ideally to set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein and then to somehow convince us (probably through public pressure via the press) to prosecute him.
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+----- Original Message -----
+
+From: [REDACTED]
+
+Sent: [REDACTED]
+
+To: [REDACTED]
+
+Subject:
+
+What is the relief jane does want in the cvra case?
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..df962ea24d889bc613b1d5d9a0044bc5a7bb7efb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/EFTA00205768.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205768.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 1411,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 77.69,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_139.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205768"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..32fb61cf2f1bbba9af3333c0d915310e3c118724
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:147f3e09f870bb470498b078aeea5d76ba29e4a7f8413a296f44155379c784e8
+size 4262
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_139.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_139.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..51aa93b5d88aa53262cd5332efec52b849a2bc54
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205768/_page_0_Picture_139.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:06eacaaca3eb806c759ce5b8f908b76f8836c438bcdc2d6e507e3be7e9ccf35a
+size 3897
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7d830690a567c6703a92c3c775f644c9ed3fc67f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.md
@@ -0,0 +1,736 @@
+## 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+3 JANE DOE, ) Case No. ) 08-80736-CIV-MARRA 4 Petitioner, ) ) 5) ) 6 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,) ) 7 Respondent. ) West Palm Beach, Florida ) August 14, 2008 8 )
+
+## 10 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
+
+11 BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA 12 U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
+
+14 Appearances: 15 FOR THE PETITIONER Bradley J. Edwards, ESQ., and Paul G. Cassell, ESQ.
+
+17 FOR THE RESPONDENT
+
+19 Reporter Stephen W. Franklin, RMR, CRR, CPE (561)514-3768 Official Court Reporter 20 701 Clematis Street, Suite 417 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
+
+1 (Call to the order of the Court.)
+
+2 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
+
+3 VOICES: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
+
+4 THE COURT: All right. This is the case of In Re: 5 Jane Does 1 and 2, case number 08-80736-C/V-MARRA.
+
+6 May I have counsel state appearances, please, and 7 if you can please try and speak up so we can hear you.
+
+8 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Brad Edwards, on behalf of 9 Jane Doe 1 and 2.
+
+10 MR. CASSELL: Paul Cassell, along with Mr. Edwards.
+
+11 THE COURT: Good afternoon.
+
+12 : Good afternoon, Your Honor. For the 13 United States Government, Dexter Lee, Assistant U.S. 14 Attorney, and Marie
+
+15 THE COURT: All right. Good afternoon.
+
+16 Mr. -- everyone, we're having trouble hearing you, 17 so if you can try and speak up, and also if you could 18 identify yourself before you begin speaking so the reporter 19 can accurately indicate on the record who is speaking. / 20 appreciate that.
+
+21 / scheduled this for a status conference in order 22 to determine whether I'm going to need additional -- as far 23 as the parties were concerned, whether either of the parties 24 thought that I needed additional information in order to 25 proceed with the pending motion by the Plaintiffs or whether
+
+1 we have a complete record based upon what's already been 2 submitted, and I wasn't quite sure where we were on that 3 since we last met.
+
+4 So if I can hear from Mr. Edwards or Mr. Cassell 5 first what the Plaintiffs' position as far as where we stand 6 on the record in terms of whether I need additional facts, 7 evidence, or there's going to be a stipulation submitted to B me upon which I can rely.
+
+9 MR. EDWARDS: Sure.
+
+10 Your Honor, this is Brad Edwards.
+
+11 / believe that you do have a sufficient record, in 12 that / don't think that -- I think that we're in agreement 13 that additional evidence does not need to be taken in the 14 case for Your Honor to make a ruling. We have actually met 15 with the U.S. Attorney, and we've had meaningful discussions 16 in an attempt to resolve our issues. I think the only issue, 17 we can probably agree to this right now, is that the victims 18 are unable at this point in time to go any further with 19 requesting a remedy from the Court without the full and 20 complete plea agreement being produced to us from the U.S. 21 Government, and the U.S. Government's hands are tied in that 22 there's a confidentiality agreement within that plea 23 agreement that prohibits them from turning that over.
+
+24 So at this point in time, we would be asking Your 25 Honor to enter an order compelling them to turn over that
+
+1 2 agreement, and at that point in time I think we can meet again and probably resolve our disputes amongst ourselves.
+
+3 4 5 6 7 THE COURT: All right. So do I understand that you're modifying your claim for relief at this point and only seeking me to compel the Government to produce the plea agreement, or are you -- or is this a -- a preliminary step, after which you're then going to evaluate whether you want me to do something further?
+
+9 10 11 12 13 14 MR. EDWARDS: I think it's the latter, Your Honor. /t is, and it will likely always be, our position that the victims' rights are violated. However, because of the legal consequences of invalidating the current agreement, it is likely not in my clients' best interest to ask for the relief that we initially asked for.
+
+15 16 17 18 19 20 21 So in order to effectively evaluate the situation and ask for the appropriate relief, we would just be asking Your Honor at this point in time to allow us to see the full entire plea agreement that is purportedly drafted to protect my victims. That only seems fair to know, you know, what the plea agreement says, especially in light of the fact that Mr. Epstein knows what the plea agreement says.
+
+22 23 24 25 relief, whether THE COURT: All you will evaluate to either dismiss some additional relief? right. And then if I grant that the agreement and then decide your case or go forward and ask for 1 MR. EDWARDS: That's correct, Your Honor.
+
+2 THE COURT: /s it your plan or is there any kind 3 of -- been any kind of discussion between you and the 4 Government as to what you -- if I grant the relief of 5 requiring the Government to at least present you with the 6 agreement and let you view it, has there been any discussion 7 about you keeping it confidential and not letting it go any 8 further than your clients and using it for your 9 decision-making purposes, or do you wish to have it released 10 to you, and you would be able to use it however you wished?
+
+11 MR. EDWARDS: Well, Your Honor, we would prefer 12 that it be produced to us and not have to keep it 13 confidential. I think that that creates an undue hardship on 14 us. However, if it was Your Honor's order that we do 15 maintain some confidentiality of the agreement, we would 16 certainly abide by it.
+
+17 The reason we want it is not so that it's 18 disseminated everywhere; however, there is a public interest 19 in viewing what happens in the court process, and this is 20 just part of it. There's no reason that it should be sealed 21 or kept confidential. Seems to be an overwhelming reason 22 to -- to make it public. However, that's not our intention. 23 Our intention is just to view it, represent my clients and 24 then evaluate it and ask the Court for the appropriate relief 25 after we've seen it.
+
+1 THE COURT: All right. And, again, although I hear 2 you saying you think that it shouldn't be kept confidential 3 because there's some public interest in it, but if you had it 4 to use for whatever, to represent your client either in 5 advising your clients whether to go forward with this case or 6 not, or I guess to use it in connection with any other 7 litigation that you might want to initiate on behalf of your 8 clients where that agreement might have some relevance, 9 what's the interest in using -- having the ability to 10 disclose it beyond those purposes?
+
+11 MR. EDWARDS: Well, certainly if -- if the 12 agreement was designed to protect these victims in a criminal 13 as well as a civil context, and we are going to be filing 14 civil cases against Mr. Epstein, and this agreement, 15 undoubtedly it will play a big role in the amount of 16 protection the victims have been allotted, as well as the 17 course of action in the civil cases. It seems inevitable 18 that it's going to become, you know, more public at that 19 point in time, and I think that's in the very near future.
+
+20 At this point in time, it's not intention to make 21 it public, but I think that inevitably happens as soon as 22 civil litigation begins, and this is at the heart of it, 23
+
+24 THE COURT: Well, civil litigation has already 25 begun, hasn't it?
+
+1 MR. EDWARDS: Right.
+
+2 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
+
+3 MR. EDWARDS: At least for some other parties, with 4 other attorneys and other things, so . . .
+
+5 THE COURT: Well, you filed a case yesterday, 6 didn't you?
+
+7 MR. EDWARDS: We filed one of them. It is not on 8 behalf of one of the Jane Does that /'m representing in this 9 action.
+
+10 THE COURT: Okay. All right.
+
+11 MR. EDWARDS: Just so that we're clear.
+
+12 THE COURT: I haven't seen the name, so I didn't 13 know who it was on behalf of.
+
+14 All right. Let me hear from or
+
+15 Ms.
+
+16 I understand that you're under a confidentiality 17 agreement, and / understand that you feel restricted in what 18 you can unilaterally do, but I've already entered some 19 rulings in this case that have made portions of that 20 agreement public. Is there any reason to keep the rest of 21 the agreement confidential, other than you're obligated by 22 the agreement and don't want to be in a position where you've 23 unilaterally violated it absent a court order?
+
+24 : Yes, Your Honor. This is I
+
+25 Good afternoon.
+
+1 Your Honor, we do feel bound by the confidentiality 2 provision such that we could not voluntarily disclose this 3 non-prosecution agreement without court order compelling us 4 to do so.
+
+5 The provision in the non-prosecution agreement 6 required us to notify Mr. Epstein and his attorneys of any 7 attempts to have this document disclosed in a public forum, B and we have done so. They have expressed their desire that 9 if this document is to be disclosed to the Petitioners in 10 this case, that it be done pursuant to a protective order 11 which would preclude the victims from disseminating it 12 publicly.
+
+13 We believe that is appropriate in this action. It 14 would allow them access to the document, which they claim 15 they have a need to have, and that's fine. They can review 16 it and determine where they wish to go. We believe there's 17 no public interest in having this disseminated.
+
+18 Now, should there be subsequent litigation between 19 Mr. Edwards' clients and Mr. Epstein, and the subject matter 20 of this agreement should arise, then Mr. Epstein and 21 Mr. Edwards will be in a position to litigate that in 22 whatever forum it is, rather than having that issue disposed 23 of where they're not present to voice their objections.
+
+24 So we would ask the Court to, if it compels us to 25 disclose it, to do so under a protective order which would
+
+1 provide for no public dissemination.
+
+2 THE COURT: All right.
+
+3 : Your Honor this is Marie
+
+4 Just to add onto what was saying, one of 5 our concerns is that there are names of individuals in the 6 order who are not currently --
+
+7 THE COURT: Ms. , I'm having trouble B hearing you. I apologize.
+
+9 MS. : I'm sorry.
+
+10 Your Honor, one of our concerns is that the 11 agreement contains names of individuals who are not 12 currently -- haven't pled guilty or haven't -- do not have 13 certain obligations. And / think that there may be a Rule 14 6(e) issue if the agreement is made public or available to 15 the press, et cetera.
+
+16 THE COURT: Okay. So, I'm sorry, you say there are 17 names of other individuals that do what?
+
+18 MS. : They were other individuals who are 19 the subject of these -- who are the subject of the 20 Government's investigation but who are not necessarily known 21 to the public in the sense that Mr. Epstein entered the 22 guilty plea and the public is aware of that, but they may not 23 know about these other individuals who haven't been indicted, 24 and therefore I think they have a bit of a privacy interest 25 here.
+
+1 THE COURT: Okay. But they're not parties to the 2 agreement.
+
+3 MS. : No.
+
+4 THE COURT: Okay. Other than the fact that the 5 Government bound itself in the agreement not to disclose it, 6 and you require a court order to have it disclosed, what 7 would be the public interest, or what would be the 8 justification for denying disclosure of the agreement at 9 least to purported victims of Mr. Epstein's conduct? Why 10 shouldn't the victims who the Government, as I understand it, 11 provided notice of their rights under the Act that they had 12 the status of victims, why shouldn't they have the 13 opportunity to see that agreement?
+
+14 MS. : Your Honor, I guess I will respond.
+
+15 I was prepared to -- I need to highlight an issue 16 for the Court. I was prepared to argue today that we had 17 provided the victims with the portion of the agreement that 18 is relevant to them.
+
+19 Last night and this morning, in conversations with 20 Mr. Epstein's attorneys, they have said for the first time 21 that they do not believe that one portion of the agreement is 22 binding, and that is the portion that has been disclosed to 23 the victims. So I can no longer say that they have the 24 portion that is relevant to them.
+
+25 THE COURT: I'm sorry, I didn't quite follow that,
+
+1 Ms. .
+
+2 You've had discussions with Mr. Epstein's counsel 3 as to what?
+
+4 MS. : Your Honor, in preparation for 5 today's hearing, I was -- I had been working to confirm with 6 Mr. Epstein's attorney that the agreement that I have 7 described in my declaration is the one that they are 8 performing under. Last night and this morning for the first 9 time, I was told that they believe that a portion of the 10 agreement that is described in my declaration and that was 11 disclosed to the victims does not bind them. So as of this 12 point, the victims have not received at least what 13 Mr. Epstein claims is the portion relevant to them.
+
+14 THE COURT: Okay. Your understanding is that 15 Mr. Epstein's taking the position that the portions of the 16 agreement that have already been disclosed are not -- is not 17 binding on Mr. Epstein?
+
+18 MS. : Yes.
+
+19 : Your Honor, this is Dexter Lee. If I 20 may?
+
+21 The agreement initially negotiated was executed in 22 September of 2007. That's part one, I will call it.
+
+23 In October, there was an addendum to the executed 24 agreement which occurred the month before. There was some 25 more discussions, and there was a letter that was submitted
+
+1 to Mr. Epstein's attorneys by the United States Attorney in 2 December. That's part three, I will call it.
+
+3 There is now a dispute between the Government and 4 Mr. Epstein's attorneys about whether certain portions after 5 the original agreement are effective and binding. I just 6 need to make the Court aware of that and also Mr. Edwards and 7 Judge Cassell.
+
+8 MR. EDWARDS: This is the first time
+
+9 This is Brad Edwards speaking.
+
+10 This is the first time we're hearing any of this. 11 This is obviously even further evidence that the victims were 12 unaware of the plea agreement that was being worked out.
+
+13 But, nonetheless, I don't think that it changes our 14 position, in that we believe we're entitled to not only the 15 plea agreement, but all of the addenda that have been 16 attached to that plea agreement and have become part of that 17 plea agreement, just so that what we're asking for is clear.
+
+18 : Your Honor, this is Dexter Lee.
+
+19 We are prepared to give all three hopefully, in our 20 view, pursuant to a protective order preventing public 21 disclosure, but we just want the Court and the Petitioners' 22 counsel to know that there is a dispute ongoing right now 23 about which portions are effective and which are not. And we 24 can discuss that with them at the conclusion of the hearing.
+
+25 THE COURT: All right. But again, as far as my
+
+1 earlier question, even though there's a dispute now 2 apparently between Mr. Epstein and the Government as to what 3 portions of the agreement are or are not binding, does the 4 Government have any reason why the victims should not have 5 the benefit of seeing these -- the agreement, whether, you 6 know, it's going to be held binding down the road or not, 7 other than you agreed in a confidentiality order not to disclose it? But beyond that, is there any justification 9 that the Government can provide to me as to why the victims, 10 people who have been identified by the Government as victims 11 of Mr. Epstein, should not have the benefit of seeing this 12 plea agreement, or non-prosecution agreement, whatever you 13 want to term it?
+
+14 : Your Honor, this is Dexter Lee. When you 15 refer to victims, do you mean victims beyond the three that 16 are parties to the instant litigation?
+
+17 THE COURT: I mean -- yes, I'm talking about anyone 18 who the Government may have disclosed as a -- as a -- or sent 19 notice to based upon your understanding of who might have 20 been a potential or an alleged victim of Mr. Epstein's 21 conduct, whether they're part of this lawsuit or not.
+
+22 : Well, if the Court is asking whether we 23 could expand the protective order such that it would permit 24 disclosure to those other victims identified that have 25 received notification already, I believe that would be
+
+1 appropriate.
+
+2 THE COURT: Okay. But I guess my real question is 3 do you have any reason that you could advance why they should 4 not get it?
+
+5 Let's just limit ourselves to the victims who are 6 the Jane Does in this case before we go beyond that. Is 7 there any reason that the Government can advance why the two B Jane Does 1 and 2 in this case should not have the 9 opportunity to view the plea agreement, or the deferral 10 agreement or the addenda to it? Can anyone justify not 11 letting them see it?
+
+12 : Your Honor, this iS Dexter Lee.
+
+13 No, we cannot.
+
+14 THE COURT: Okay. All right. Now, Mr. Edwards.
+
+15 MR. EDWARDS: Yes.
+
+16 THE COURT: Is there any reason why I shouldn't, 17 assuming I'm going to allow or require the Government to 18 produce the agreement and the addenda to your clients in this 19 case -- and we'll talk about other victims in a minute -- is 20 there any reason why, at least initially, it shouldn't be 21 subject to a protective order so that in the case, for 22 example, that you filed yesterday on behalf of an alleged 23 victim under a Jane Doe, where you specifically reference 24 this agreement in your -- in one the counts, that it 25 shouldn't remain subject to a protective order at least until
+
+1 Mr. Epstein has the opportunity to litigate whether or not it 2 should be disclosed beyond -- beyond your clients or other 3 victims?
+
+4 MR. EDWARDS: At this point, Your Honor, I think 5 that that would probably be fair.
+
+6 My only real concern is that if there's an order 7 out there where anybody can access on PACER and it says, B "okay, at this point I'm ordering the Government to disclose 9 this plea agreement," I just want to make sure if anybody 10 else feels entitled to that agreement, whether it's other 11 victims, or counsel, or what have you, that they be required 12 to request it from the Government or these attorneys rather 13 than try to subpoena or request it from my office, knowing 14 that / have access to this confidential agreement.
+
+15 Other than that, no, I don't have any other reasons 16 why that's not a reasonable order.
+
+17 THE COURT: All right. And let's assume I think it 18 should be available to any person that the Government has 19 identified as an alleged victim of Mr. Epstein's conduct, and 20 they've sent notice of their rights under the statute as a 21 victim to this -- these individuals, and I permit disclose to 22 your clients, or anyone else who fits into the category of 23 victim as described by the Government, and require -- you 24 know, again, impose a protective order that it shouldn't go 25 to anyone beyond that until such time as, in a pending
+
+1 lawsuit, I conclude that the protective order should be 2 lifted after Mr. Epstein has an opportunity to be heard on 3 that issue, is there anything else that you would need at 4 this point?
+
+5 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor.
+
+6 This is Brad Edwards.
+
+7 At this point in time that's all we're requesting.
+
+8 THE COURT: And or Ms. , if I 9 conclude that anyone that you've identified as a victim and 10 notified as a victim of their rights with respect to the 11 investigation of Mr. Epstein is entitled to view the 12 agreements, subject to a protective order until such other 13 time that / say it should be released beyond that, do you -- 14 is there any reason why I shouldn't make it available to all 15 of the people who have been identified by you as a victim?
+
+16 : This is Dexter Lee, Your Honor.
+
+17 The answer is no, there's no problem, with the 18 exception of the grand jury issue that my colleague, 19 Ms. , mentioned earlier. I may have to defer to her 20 right now on that issue to see if that would preclude what 21 the Court is asking.
+
+22 THE COURT: All right. Hold on one second.
+
+23 (Brief pause in proceedings.)
+
+24 THE COURT: Mr. Edwards, is there any reason why 25 you would need to see the names of others that the Government
+
+1 may have been investigating that might appear -- whose names 2 might appear in these agreements? /s there any interest that 3 you would have in that or need to see that information?
+
+4 MR. EDWARDS: Well, the primary interest would be 5 that those are obviously important witnesses for any case 6 that my clients have against Mr. Epstein, witnesses that 7 Mr. Epstein is clearly aware of, since he has access to the 8 complete full agreement, and it seems inherently unfair that 9 he would have access to the names -- to a witness list that 10 my clients would not be privy to.
+
+11 THE COURT: Well, why wouldn't you be able to get 12 those through discovery in the civil litigation?
+
+13 MR. EDWARDS: And that may be an appropriate time 14 to get it. But that would be my primary objection for not 15 getting the names of the victims, whether now or eventually.
+
+16 THE COURT: No, as I understand it, this is not the 17 names of other victims, this is the names of other 18 individuals that the Government may have been investigating 19 in connection with their investigation of Mr. Epstein, and 20 they're concerned about grand jury secrecy and information 21 that may have been brought before the grand jury that should 22 not be made public at this point, as I understood the 23 Government's position.
+
+24 Is that correct, Ms.
+
+25 MS. : Yes, Your Honor.
+
+1 MR. EDWARDS: Well, Your Honor, as I understand 2 this -- and correct me if I'm wrong, anybody -- this 3 non-prosecution agreement provides for a dismissal or 4 immunity for other individuals, and I think these are the 5 individuals that we are talking about. But all of that is 6 inextricably intertwined within this agreement, and it is 7 this agreement in its total form that is supposed to protect 6 the victims. I think that the victims have a right to know 9 of these other individuals, who my clients were also familiar 10 with during the course of this conduct, and how it protects 11 them in this case. And I don't see why they should, once 12 again, get an incomplete version of this. Because these are 13 characters that are very intertwined with the -- the -- with 14 Mr. Epstein's conduct. This is not completely and wholly 15 indifferent or irrelevant conduct for some other people. 16 This is all part of the same conduct, and I think that's 17 probably necessary for us to evaluate the effect of this 18 agreement and whether or not we're going to continue to 19 pursue this case.
+
+20 THE COURT: All right. So you're assuming that the 21 agreement also provides that the Government will not 22 prosecute these other individuals? That's what your 23 assumption is?
+
+24 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor.
+
+25 THE COURT: Do you have any information to -- upon
+
+1 which you make that conclusion, or is that just an 2 assumption?
+
+3 MR. EDWARDS: That is all just, you know, the 4 discussions that we've had with various individuals, law 5 enforcement, clients, things like that. And putting it 6 together, that's what we believe is a portion of this 7 agreement. /f /'m wrong about that, one of the U.S. Attorneys on the phone can probably correct me. But that's 9 my belief.
+
+10 THE COURT: All right. Well, assume they're just 11 mentioned in the agreement in some way. And I'm not sure how 12 or why they would be mentioned. But assume they're mentioned 13 in the agreement, but there's no agreement by the Government 14 not to prosecute them. Is there any reason for you to have 15 their names if it's other than for the purpose of finding out 16 the extent to which the Government has agreed not to 17 prosecute Mr. Epstein and other individuals?
+
+18 MR. EDWARDS: That's a tough question for me to 19 answer without knowing in what context those individuals are 20 listed. However, I just renew my previous argument that / do 21 believe they're intertwined, and I think that, once again, if 22 we get a version of this plea agreement without the portions 23 that pertain to these other individuals, then we could 24 possibly be in the same position where we are not sure as to 25 the full extent of the protection allowed under this
+
+1 agreement. That would be -- without knowing how they're 2 mentioned, I can't voice any other objection to not getting 3 those portions but I could certainly foresee where, you know, 4 we're not going to get out of it what we're asking.
+
+5 THE COURT: All right. Well, again, I didn't 6 understand the Government to want to redact the entire 7 provisions that relate to these individuals. I understood B that they just wanted to redact their names.
+
+9 Am I correct, Ms.
+
+10 MS. : Yes.
+
+11 THE COURT: Okay. So if you were given the 12 agreement with these names redacted but you saw the context 13 in which they were listed, and then, after seeing the 14 agreement and the context in which their names were 15 mentioned, if it presented a problem to you that they were 16 being withheld, couldn't you then just, you know, file 17 another motion for disclosure of the names after you've had 18 an opportunity to, you know, evaluate whether or not there's 19 any real need for you to get these names?
+
+20 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. We could do that at that time, 21 Your Honor.
+
+22 THE COURT: All right. Anything else that anybody 23 wants to add to what -- our discussion?
+
+24 MR. EDWARDS: One more thing, Your Honor. This is 25 Brad Edwards.
+
+1 Same topic. My clients are currently in a position 2 where they may be speaking to local law enforcement regarding 3 certain issues pertaining to this case, and if we are unable 4 to have access to the other named people in this agreement, 5 it may put them at a disadvantage in terms of whether or not 6 it would be in their benefit to speak with other law 7 enforcement about this case. I mean, certainly if there's 8 individuals who have been given immunity in this agreement, 9 then it would only be to the disadvantage of my clients to 10 continue to try to pursue criminal charges.
+
+11 So in that regard, that would be my only objection 12 to not having the names of these other individuals.
+
+13 THE COURT: All right. Well, again, you're 14 assuming that there's some kind of immunity or deferral of 15 prosecution --
+
+16 MR. EDWARDS: That's correct.
+
+17 THE COURT: -- given to people other than 18 Mr. Epstein, correct?
+
+19 MR. EDWARDS: That's correct.
+
+20 THE COURT: Okay. And that's something that would 21 be clear once you got the agreement and you read it, and if 22 the names were -- you know, if that was apparent in the 23 agreement, then you could come back and ask me to require the 24 disclosure of the names.
+
+25 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. That sounds fair.
+
+1 THE COURT: All right. or Ms. 2 did you have anything else you wanted to add?
+
+3 MS. : Well, Your Honor, I guess I will 4 just tell the Court this. It does indeed contain language 5 related to that issue. So I don't know if you want to make 6 Mr. Edwards jump through that hurdle or if you want to make 7 that decision now.
+
+8 THE COURT: All right. So you're telling me that 9 there is some language in the agreements that does obligate 10 the Government to not prosecute individuals other than 11 Mr. Epstein?
+
+12 MS. : Correct.
+
+13 THE COURT: All right. So if that's true, why 14 should the victims not know who those people are?
+
+15 MS. : Your Honor, I guess my concern 16 really relates to disclosure. And if your protective 17 order -- or I don't know if you need a written protective 18 order or an ore tenus order, limit Mr. Edwards to disclosing 19 it only to his clients and to his co-counsel, then I don't 20 think that we would have a basis to object.
+
+21 THE COURT: Again, with the right for them to come 22 back and ask for the ability to disclose it beyond that 23 limited group at a later time after Mr. Epstein has an 24 opportunity to be heard?
+
+25 MS. : Right.
+
+1 THE COURT: Again, Mr. Edwards, do you have any 2 problem with that procedure, you know, you're permitted to 3 disclose -- the names of these individuals who are also 4 getting the benefit of a non-prosecution agreement would be 5 disclosed to you under the terms of the protective order 6 without prejudice to you being able to, in any litigation 7 that ensues, seeking to disclose it beyond the limited group?
+
+8 MR. EDWARDS: No, Your Honor, that's fine.
+
+9 THE COURT: All right. Well, then I'm going to 10 order the Government to produce the agreement and any addenda 11 to Mr. Epstein -- Mr. Edwards in this case, and it would be 12 available also to any other individuals who have been 13 identified by the United States as victims in connection with 14 the investigation of Mr. Epstein, subject to a protective 15 order. Which, I'm going to ask the parties to try and work 16 on the language of a protective order to submit to me that 17 would prohibit disclosure to anyone other than Mr. -- to the 18 victim, or victims' counsel, without prejudice to the victims 19 seeking the ability to disclose it beyond that limited group 20 after Mr. Epstein has an opportunity to be heard on further 21 disclosure.
+
+22 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+23 : This is Dexter Lee.
+
+24 Very well, Your Honor. We appreciate your time.
+
+25 THE COURT: All right. So is there any questions
+
+1 about it? Is there anything unclear about what I'm ordering?
+
+2 And I'm also -- okay. And the names of the -- 3 there will be no redaction in the agreements, but any victim 4 has to -- who gets notice of this has to agree to be bound by 5 the protective order until further order of the Court.
+
+6 MS. : Your Honor, this is Marie 7
+
+8 Just to be clear, we are not under an obligation to 9 advise the victims of this, but if the victim asks for a copy 10 of the document, this is the procedure that we'll follow?
+
+11 THE COURT: Well, I'm not going to tell you whether 12 you have any obligation under the Act to disclose this or 13 not. I don't want to get into that. I don't know that you 14 do, but I don't want to say that you don't. So if you have 15 an independent obligation to disclose this to victims under 16 the Act, then -- then I'm not telling you not to do it.
+
+17 MS. : Okay. But your order isn't 18 ordering us to do it. We will have to make our evaluation.
+
+19 THE COURT: I'm only ordering it to be available to 20 victims, and the -- and then you have to decide whether 21 you're obligated under the Act to disclose it to anyone else 22 who falls into that category.
+
+23 MS. : Okay. Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+24 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+
+25 VOICES: Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+1 THE COURT: Have a good day.
+
+2 (Proceedings concluded.)
+
+3 \* \* \* \* \*
+
+## 4 CERTIFICATE
+
+5 I, Stephen W. Franklin, Registered Merit Reporter, and 6 Certified Realtime Reporter, certify that the foregoing is a 7 correct transcript from the record of proceedings in the 8 above-entitled matter.
+
+9 Dated this 20th day of AUGUST, 2008.
+
+10
+
+11
+
+Stephen W. Franklin, RMR, CRR
+
+12
+
+13
+
+14
+
+15
+
+16
+
+17
+
+18
+
+19
+
+20
+
+21
+
+22
+
+23
+
+24
+
+25
+
+| A
abide (1) 5:16
ability (3) 6:9 22:22 23:19
able (3) 5:10 17:11 23:6
above-entitled (1) 25:8
absent (1) 7:23
access (6) 8:14 15:7,14 17:7,9 21:4
accurately (1) 2:19
Act (4) 10:11 24:12,16,21
action (3) 6:17 7:9 8:13
add (3) 9:4 20:23 22:2
addenda (4) 12:15 14:10,18 23:10
addendum (1) 11:23
additional (5) 2:22,24 3:6,13 4:25
advance (2) 14:3,7
advise (1) 24:9
advising (1) 6:5
afternoon (6) 2:23,11,12,15 7:25
agree (2) 3:17 24:4
agreed (2) 13:7 19:16
agreement (72) 3:12,20,22,23 4:1,6,12,18,20,21
4:23 5:6,15 6:8,12,14 7:17,20,21,22 8:3,5,20
9:11,14 10:2,5,8,13,17,21 11:6,10,16,21,24
12:5,12,15,16,17 13:3,5,12,12 14:9,10,18,24
15:9,10,14 17:8 18:3,6,7,18,21 19:7,11,13,13
19:22 20:1,12,14 21:4,8,21,23 23:4,10
agreements (4) 16:12 17:2 22:9 24:3
alleged (3) 13:20 14:22 15:19
allotted (1) 6:16
allow (3) 4:17 8:14 14:17
allowed (1) 19:25
AMERICA (1) 1:6
amount (1) 6:15
Ann (1) 1:17
answer (2) 16:17 19:19
anybody (4) 15:7,9 18:2 20:22
apologize (1) 9:8
apparent (1) 21:22
apparently (1) 13:2
appear (2) 17:1,2
appearances (2) 1:14 2:6
appreciate (2) 2:20 23:24
appropriate (5) 4:16 5:24 8:13 14:1 17:13
argue (1) 10:16
argument (1) 19:20
asked (1) 4:14
asking (6) 3:24 4:16 12:17 13:22 16:21 20:4
asks (1) 24:9
Assistant (1) 2:13
assume (3) 15:17 19:10,12
assuming (3) 14:17 18:20 21:14
assumption (2) 18:23 19:2
attached (1) 12:16
attempt (1) 3:16
attempts (1) 8:7
attorney (4) 2:14 3:15 11:6 12:1
attorneys (7) 7:4 8:6 10:20 12:1,4 15:12 19:8
August (2) 17:25,9
AUSA (2) 1:17,17
available (5) 9:14 15:18 16:14 23:12 24:19
aware (3) 9:22 12:6 17:7
| C
C (1) 1:17
call (3) 2:1 11:22 12:2
case (19) 1:3 2:4,5 3:14 4:24 6:5 7:5,19 8:10 14:6
14:8,19,21 17:5 18:11,19 21:3,7 23:11
cases (2) 6:14,17
Cassell (5) 1:15 2:10,10 3:4 12:7
category (2) 15:22 24:22
certain (3) 9:13 12:4 21:3
certainly (4) 5:16 6:11 20:3 21:7
| D
Dated (1) 25:9
day (2) 25:1,9
December (1) 12:2
decide (2) 4:23 24:20
decision (1) 22:7
decision-making (1) 5:9
declaration (2) 11:7,10
defer (1) 16:19
deferral (2) 14:9 21:14
denying (1) 10:8
described (3) 11:7,10 15:23
designed (1) 6:12
desire (1) 8:8
determine (2) 2:22 8:16
Dexter (9) 1:17 2:13 7:24 11:19 12:18 13:14 14:12
16:16 23:23
disadvantage (2) 21:5,9
disclose (14) 6:10 8:2,25 10:5 13:8 15:8,21 22:22
23:3,7,19 24:12,15,21
disclosed (9) 8:7,9 10:6,22 11:11,16 13:18 15:2
23:5
disclosing (1) 22:18
disclosure (8) 10:8 12:21 13:24 20:17 21:24 22:16
23:17,21
discovery (1) 17:12
discuss (1) 12:24
discussion (3) 5:3,6 20:23
discussions (4) 3:15 11:2,25 19:4
dismiss (1) 4:24
dismissal (1) 18:3
disposed (1) 8:22
dispute (3) 12:3,22 13:1
disputes (1) 4:2
disseminated (2) 5:18 8:17
disseminating (1) 8:11
dissemination (1) 9:1
| E
earlier (2) 13:1 16:19
Edwards (44) 1:15 2:8,8,10 3:4,9,10 4:9 5:1,11
6:11 7:1,3,7,11 8:19,21 12:6,8,9 14:14,15 15:4
16:5,6,24 17:4,13 18:1,24 19:3,18 20:20,24,25
21:16,19,25 22:6,18 23:1,8,11,22
effect (1) 18:17
effective (2) 12:5,23
effectively (1) 4:15
either (3) 2:23 4:24 6:4
enforcement (3) 19:5 21:2,7
ensues (1) 23:7
enter (1) 3:25
entered (2) 7:18 9:21
entire (2) 4:18 20:6
entitled (3) 12:14 15:10 16:11
Epstein (23) 4:21 6:14 8:6,19,20 9:21 11:13,17
13:2,11 15:1 16:2,11 17:6,7,19 19:17 21:18
22:11,23 23:11,14,20
Epstein's (10) 10:9,20 11:2,6,15 12:1,4 13:20
15:19 18:14
especially (1) 4:20
ESQ (2) 1:15,15
et (1) 9:15
evaluate (6) 4:7,15,23 5:24 18:17 20:18
evaluation (1) 24:18
eventually (1) 17:15
evidence (3) 3:7,13 12:11
example (1) 14:22
exception (1) 16:18
executed (2) 11:21,23
expand (1) 13:23
expressed (1) 8:8
extent (2) 19:16,25
F
fact (2) 4:20 10:4
facts (1) 3:6
fair (3) 4:19 15:5 21:25
falls (1) 24:22
familiar (1) 18:9
far (3) 2:22 3:5 12:25
feel (2) 7:17 8:1
feels (1) 15:10
file (1) 20:16
filed (3) 7:5,7 14:22
filing (1) 6:13
finding (1) 19:15
fine (2) 8:15 23:8
first (5) 3:5 10:20 11:8 12:8,10
fits (1) 15:22
Florida (3) 1:1,7,20
follow (2) 10:25 24:10
foregoing (1) 25:6
foresee (1) 20:3
form (1) 18:7
forum (2) 8:7,22
forward (2) 4:24 6:5
Franklin (3) 1:19 25:5,11
full (4) 3:19 4:17 17:8 19:25
further (6) 3:18 4:8 5:8 12:11 23:20 24:5
future (1) 6:19
G
G (1) 1:15
getting (3) 17:15 20:2 23:4
give (1) 12:19
given (3) 20:11 21:8,17
go (7) 3:18 4:24 5:7 6:5 8:16 14:6 15:24
going (12) 2:22 3:7 4:7 6:13,18 13:6 14:17 18:18
20:4 23:9,15 24:11
good (7) 2:2,3,11,12,15 7:25 25:1
Government (27) 2:13 3:21 4:5 5:4,5 10:5,10 12:3
13:2,4,9,10,18 14:7,17 15:8,12,18,23 16:25
17:18 18:21 19:13,16 20:6 22:10 23:10
Government's (3) 3:21 9:20 17:23
grand (3) 16:18 17:20,21
grant (2) 4:22 5:4
group (3) 22:23 23:7,19
guess (5) 6:6 10:14 14:2 22:3,15
guilty (2) 9:12,22
H
hands (1) 3:21
happens (2) 5:19 6:21
hardship (1) 5:13
hear (4) 2:7 3:4 6:1 7:14
heard (3) 16:2 22:24 23:20
hearing (6) 1:10 2:16 9:8 11:5 12:10,24
heart (1) 6:22
held (1) 13:6
| I
identified (6) 13:10,24 15:19 16:9,15 23:13
identify (1) 2:18
immunity (3) 18:4 21:8,14
important (1) 17:5
impose (1) 15:24
incomplete (1) 18:12
independent (1) 24:15
indicate (1) 2:19
indicted (1) 9:23
indifferent (1) 18:15
individuals (21) 9:5,11,17,18,23 15:21 17:18 18:4
18:5,9,22 19:4,17,19,23 20:7 21:8,12 22:10
23:3,12
inevitable (1) 6:17
inevitably (1) 6:21
inextricably (1) 18:6
information (4) 2:24 17:3,20 18:25
inherently (1) 17:8
initially (3) 4:14 11:21 14:20
initiate (1) 6:7
instant (1) 13:16
intention (3) 5:22,23 6:20
interest (9) 4:13 5:18 6:3,9 8:17 9:24 10:7 17:2,4
intertwined (3) 18:6,13 19:21
invalidating (1) 4:12
investigating (2) 17:1,18
investigation (4) 9:20 16:11 17:19 23:14
irrelevant (1) 18:15
issue (8) 3:16 8:22 9:14 10:15 16:3,18,20 22:5
issues (2) 3:16 21:3
J
J (1) 1:15
Jame (7) 1:3 2:5,9 7:8 14:6,8,23
Judge (2) 1:12 12:7
jump (1) 22:6
jury (3) 16:18 17:20,21
justification (2) 10:8 13:8
justify (1) 14:10
K
keep (2) 5:12 7:20
keeping (1) 5:7
KENNETH (1) 1:11
kept (2) 5:21 6:2
kind (3) 5:2,3 21:14
know (19) 4:19,19 6:18 7:13 9:23 12:22 13:6
15:24 18:8 19:3 20:3,16,18 21:22 22:5,14,17
23:2 24:13
knowing (3) 15:13 19:19 20:1
known (1) 9:20
knows (1) 4:21
L
language (3) 22:4,9 23:16
law (3) 19:4 21:2,6
lawsuit (2) 13:21 16:1
Lee (22) 1:17 2:12,13 7:14,24,24 9:4 11:19,19
12:18,18 13:14,14,22 14:12,12 16:8,16,16 22:1
23:23,23
legal (1) 4:11
letter (1) 11:25
letting (2) 5:7 14:11
let's (2) 14:5 15:17
lifted (1) 16:2
light (1) 4:20
limit (2) 14:5 22:18
limited (3) 22:23 23:7,19
list (1) 17:9
listed (2) 19:20 20:13
litigate (2) 8:21 15:1
litigation (7) 6:7,22,24 8:18 13:16 17:12 23:6
local (1) 21:2
longer (1) 10:23
M
maintain (1) 5:15
Marie (4) 1:17 2:14 9:3 24:6
MARRA (1) 1:11
matter (2) 8:19 25:8
mean (3) 13:15,17 21:7
meaningful (1) 3:15
meet (1) 4:1
mentioned (6) 16:19 19:11,12,12 20:2,15
|
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
+
+Merit (1) 25:5
+ met (2) 3:3,14
+ minute (1) 14:19
+ modifying (1) 4:4
+ month (1) 11:24
+ morning (2) 10:19 11:8
+ motion (2) 2:25 20:17
+
+N
+
+name (1) 7:12
+ named (1) 21:4
+ names (20) 9:5,11,17 16:25 17:1,9,15,17,17 19:15 20:8,12,14,17,19 21:12,22,24 23:3 24:2
+ near (1) 6:19
+ necessarily (1) 9:20
+ necessary (1) 18:17
+ need (11) 2:22 3:6,13 8:15 10:15 12:6 16:3,25 17:3 20:19 22:17
+ needed (1) 2:24
+ negotiated (1) 11:21
+ night (2) 10:19 11:8
+ non-prosecution (5) 8:3,5 13:12 18:3 23:4
+ notice (4) 10:11 13:19 15:20 24:4
+ notification (1) 13:25
+ notified (1) 16:10
+ notify (1) 8:6
+ number (1) 2:5
+
+O
+
+object (1) 22:20
+ objection (3) 17:14 20:2 21:11
+ objections (1) 8:23
+ obligate (1) 22:9
+ obligated (2) 7:21 24:21
+ obligation (3) 24:8,12,15
+ obligations (1) 9:13
+ obviously (2) 12:11 17:5
+ occurred (1) 11:24
+ October (1) 11:23
+ office (1) 15:13
+ Official (1) 1:19
+ okay (18) 2:8 7:2,10 9:16 10:1,4 11:14 14:2,14 15:8 20:11,20 21:20,25 23:22 24:2,17,23
+ once (3) 18:11 19:21 21:21
+ ongoing (1) 12:22
+ opportunity (7) 10:13 14:9 15:1 16:2 20:18 22:24 23:20
+ order (32) 2:1,21,24 3:25 4:15 5:14 7:23 8:3,10,25 9:6 10:6 12:20 13:7,23 14:21,25 15:6,16,24 16:1,12 22:17,18,18 23:5,10,15,16 24:5,5,17
+ ordering (4) 15:8 24:1,18,19
+ ore (1) 22:18
+ original (1) 12:5
+ overwhelming (1) 5:21
+
+P
+
+PACER (1) 15:7
+ Palm (2) 1:7,20
+ part (6) 5:20 11:22 12:2,16 13:21 18:16
+ parties (6) 2:23,23 7:3 10:1 13:16 23:15
+ Paul (2) 1:15 2:10
+ pause (1) 16:23
+ pending (2) 2:25 15:25
+ people (6) 13:10 16:15 18:15 21:4,17 22:14
+ performing (1) 11:8
+ permit (2) 13:23 15:21
+ permitted (1) 23:2
+ person (1) 15:18
+ pertain (1) 19:23
+ pertaining (1) 21:3
+ Petitioner (2) 1:4,15
+ Petitioners (2) 8:9 12:21
+ phone (1) 19:8
+ Plaintiffs (2) 2:25 3:5
+ plan (1) 5:2
+ play (1) 6:15
+ plea (15) 3:20,22 4:5,18,20,21 9:22 12:12,15,16 12:17 13:12 14:9 15:9 19:22
+ please (2) 2:6,7
+ pled (1) 9:12
+ point (13) 3:18,24 4:1,4,17 6:19,20 11:12 15:4,8 16:4,7 17:22
+ portion (7) 10:17,21,22,24 11:9,13 19:6
+ portions (7) 7:19 11:15 12:4,23 13:3 19:22 20:3
+ position (9) 3:5 4:10 7:22 8:21 11:15 12:14 17:23 19:24 21:1
+ possibly (1) 19:24
+ potential (1) 13:20
+ preclude (2) 8:11 16:20
+ prefer (1) 5:11
+ prejudice (2) 23:6,18
+ preliminary (1) 4:6
+ preparation (1) 11:4
+ prepared (3) 10:15,16 12:19
+ present (2) 5:5 8:23
+ presented (1) 20:15
+ press (1) 9:15
+
+preventing (1) 12:20
+ previous (1) 19:20
+ primary (2) 17:4,14
+ privacy (1) 9:24
+ privy (1) 17:10
+ probably (5) 3:17 4:2 15:5 18:17 19:8
+ problem (3) 16:17 20:15 23:2
+ procedure (2) 23:2 24:10
+ proceed (1) 2:25
+ proceedings (3) 16:23 25:2,7
+ process (1) 5:19
+ produce (3) 4:5 14:18 23:10
+ produced (2) 3:20 5:12
+ prohibit (1) 23:17
+ prohibits (1) 3:23
+ prosecute (4) 18:22 19:14,17 22:10
+ prosecution (1) 21:15
+ protect (3) 4:18 6:12 18:7
+ protection (2) 6:16 19:25
+ protective (15) 8:10,25 12:20 13:23 14:21,25 15:24 16:1,12 22:16,17 23:5,14,16 24:5
+
+P
+
+protects (1) 18:10
+ provide (2) 9:1 13:9
+ provided (2) 10:11,17
+ provides (2) 18:3,21
+ provision (2) 8:2,5
+ provisions (1) 20:7
+ public (15) 5:18,22 6:3,18,21 7:20 8:7,17 9:1,14 9:21,22 10:7 12:20 17:22
+ publicly (1) 8:12
+ purported (1) 10:9
+ purportedly (1) 4:18
+ purpose (1) 19:15
+ purposes (2) 5:9 6:10
+ pursuant (2) 8:10 12:20
+ pursue (2) 18:19 21:10
+ put (1) 21:5
+ putting (1) 19:5
+
+Q
+
+question (3) 13:1 14:2 19:18
+ questions (1) 23:25
+ quite (2) 3:2 10:25
+
+R
+
+read (1) 21:21
+ real (3) 14:2 15:6 20:19
+ really (1) 22:16
+ Realitme (1) 25:6
+ reason (12) 5:17,20,21 7:20 13:4 14:3,7,16,20 16:14,24 19:14
+ reasonable (1) 15:16
+ reasons (1) 15:15
+ received (2) 11:12 13:25
+ record (5) 2:19 3:1,6,11 25:7
+ redact (2) 20:6,8
+ redacted (1) 20:12
+ redaction (1) 24:3
+ refer (1) 13:15
+ reference (1) 14:23
+ regard (1) 21:11
+ regarding (1) 21:2
+ Registered (1) 25:5
+ relate (1) 20:7
+ related (1) 22:5
+ relates (1) 22:16
+ released (2) 5:9 16:13
+ relevance (1) 6:8
+ relevant (3) 10:18,24 11:13
+ relief (7) 4:4,13,16,23,25 5:4,24
+ rely (1) 3:8
+ remain (1) 14:25
+ remedy (1) 3:19
+ renew (1) 19:20
+ reporter (5) 1:19,19 2:18 25:5,6
+ represent (2) 5:23 6:4
+ representing (1) 7:8
+ request (2) 15:12,13
+ requesting (2) 3:19 16:7
+ require (4) 10:6 14:17 15:23 21:23
+ required (2) 8:6 15:11
+ requiring (1) 5:5
+ resolve (2) 3:16 4:2
+ respect (1) 16:10
+ respond (1) 10:14
+ Respondent (2) 1:7,17
+ rest (1) 7:20
+ restricted (1) 7:17
+ review (1) 8:15
+ right (31) 2:4,15 3:17 4:3,22 6:1 7:1,2,10,14 9:2 12:22,25 14:14 15:17 16:20,22 18:8,20 19:10 20:5,22 21:13 22:1,8,13,21,25 23:9,25 24:24
+ rights (4) 4:11 10:11 15:20 16:10
+ RMR (2) 1:19 25:11
+ road (1) 13:6
+ role (1) 6:15
+ Rule (1) 9:13
+ ruling (1) 3:14
+
+rulings (1) 7:19
+
+S
+
+saw (1) 20:12
+ saying (2) 6:2 9:4
+ says (3) 4:20,21 15:7
+ scheduled (1) 2:21
+ sealed (1) 5:20
+ second (1) 16:22
+ secrecy (1) 17:20
+ see (7) 4:17 10:13 14:11 16:20,25 17:3 18:11
+ seeing (3) 13:5,11 20:13
+ seeking (3) 4:5 23:7,19
+ seen (2) 5:25 7:12
+ sense (1) 9:21
+ sent (2) 13:18 15:20
+ September (1) 11:22
+ situation (1) 4:15
+ soon (1) 6:21
+ sorry (3) 9:9,16 10:25
+ sounds (1) 21:25
+ SOUTHERN (1) 1:1
+ speak (3) 2:7,17 21:6
+ speaking (4) 2:18,19 12:9 21:2
+ specifically (1) 14:23
+ stand (1) 3:5
+ state (1) 2:6
+ States (5) 1:1,6 2:13 12:1 23:13
+ status (2) 2:21 10:12
+ statute (1) 15:20
+ step (1) 4:6
+ Stephen (3) 1:19 25:5,11
+ stipulation (1) 3:7
+ Street (1) 1:20
+ subject (7) 8:19 9:19,19 14:21,25 16:12 23:14
+ submit (1) 23:16
+ submitted (3) 3:2,7 11:25
+ subpoena (1) 15:13
+ subsequent (1) 8:18
+ sufficient (1) 3:11
+ Suite (1) 1:20
+ supposed (1) 18:7
+ sure (5) 3:2,9 15:9 19:11,24
+
+T
+
+taken (1) 3:13
+ talk (1) 14:19
+ talking (2) 13:17 18:5
+ tell (2) 22:4 24:11
+ telling (2) 22:8 24:16
+ tenus (1) 22:18
+ term (1) 13:13
+ terms (3) 3:6 21:5 23:5
+ Thank (4) 23:22 24:23,24,25
+ thing (1) 20:24
+ things (2) 7:4 19:5
+ think (19) 3:12,12,16 4:1,9 5:13 6:2,19,21 9:13,24 12:13 15:4,17 18:4,8,16 19:21 22:20
+ thought (1) 2:24
+ three (3) 12:2,19 13:15
+ tied (1) 3:21
+ time (17) 3:18,24 4:1,17 6:19,20 10:20 11:9 12:8 12:10 15:25 16:7,13 17:13 20:20 22:23 23:24
+
+U
+
+unable (2) 3:18 21:3
+ unaware (1) 12:12
+ unclear (1) 24:1
+ understand (7) 4:3 7:16,17 10:10 17:16 18:1 20:6
+ understanding (2) 11:14 13:19
+ understood (2) 17:22 20:7
+ undoubtedly (1) 6:15
+ undue (1) 5:13
+ unfair (1) 17:8
+ unilaterally (2) 7:18,23
+ United (5) 1:1,6 2:13 12:1 23:13
+ use (3) 5:10 6:4,6
+ US (6) 1:12 2:13 3:15,20,21 19:7
+
+victim (11) 13:20 14:23 15:19,21,23 16:9,10,15 23:18 24:3,9
+ victims (35) 3:17 4:11,19 6:12,16 8:11 10:9,10,12 10:17,23 11:11,12 12:11 13:4,9,10,15,15,24 14:5,19 15:3,11 17:15,17 18:8,8 22:14 23:13 23:18,18 24:9,15,20
+ view (5) 5:6,23 12:20 14:9 16:11
+ viewing (1) 5:19
+
+W
+
+(28) 1:17 2:14 7:15 9:3,3,7,9,18 10:3,14 11:1,4,18 16:8,19 17:24,25 20:9,10 22:1,3,12 22:15,25 24:6,7,17,23
+ violated (2) 4:11 7:23
+ voice (2) 8:23 20:2
+ VOICES (2) 2:3 24:25
+ voluntarily (1) 8:2
+
+Y
+
+W (3) 1:19 25:5,11
+ want (12) 4:7 5:17 6:7 7:22 12:21 13:13 15:9 20:6 22:5,6 24:13,14
+ wanted (2) 20:8 22:2
+ wants (1) 20:23
+ wasn't (1) 3:2
+ way (1) 19:11
+ West (2) 1:7,20
+ we'll (2) 14:19 24:10
+ we're (10) 2:16 3:12 7:11 12:10,14,17 16:7 18:18 20:4,4
+ we've (3) 3:15 5:25 19:4
+ wholly (1) 18:14
+ wish (2) 5:9 8:16
+ wished (1) 5:10
+ withheld (1) 20:16
+ witness (1) 17:9
+ witnesses (2) 17:5,6
+ work (1) 23:15
+ worked (1) 12:12
+ working (1) 11:5
+ wouldn't (1) 17:11
+ written (1) 22:17
+ wrong (2) 18:2 19:7
+
+Y
+
+yesterday (2) 7:5 14:22
+
+0
+
+08-80736-CIV-MARRA (2) 1:3 2:5
+
+1
+
+1 (3) 2:5,9 14:8 14 (1) 1:7
+
+2
+
+2 (3) 2:5,9 14:8 20th (1) 25:9 2007 (1) 11:22 2008 (2) 1:7 25:9
+
+3
+
+33401 (1) 1:20
+
+4
+
+417 (1) 1:20
+
+5
+
+561/514-3768 (1) 1:19
+
+6
+
+6(e) (1) 9:14
+
+7
+
+701 (1) 1:20
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..31c500a5ed5752d6b44f510a44fce4ef113d8f2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205770/EFTA00205770.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1008 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205770.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 27,
+ "chars": 62563,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 28.48,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 104.41000366210938,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.7467956542969,
+ 72.9
+ ],
+ [
+ 434.7467956542969,
+ 96.82623291015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 104.41000366210938,
+ 96.82623291015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "10 TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 97.58000183105469,
+ 285.92999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.8426208496094,
+ 285.92999999999995
+ ],
+ [
+ 407.8426208496094,
+ 298.5762634277344
+ ],
+ [
+ 97.58000183105469,
+ 298.5762634277344
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "4 CERTIFICATE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 145.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.17523193359375,
+ 145.8
+ ],
+ [
+ 380.17523193359375,
+ 157.95
+ ],
+ [
+ 102.20400000000001,
+ 157.95
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 72
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 111
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 56
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 58
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 13
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 22
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Table",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205770"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b9efa20fa625a921619b3d3f9e4dafaff8fe5eff
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.md
@@ -0,0 +1,503 @@
+THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
+SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA
+
+IN RE: JANE DOE,
+Plaintiff,
+vs.
+
+UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
+
+Defendant.
+
+\_\_\_\_\_/
+
+Federal Courthouse
+West Palm Beach, Florida
+July 11, 2008
+10:15 a.m.
+
+The above entitled matter came on for
+Emergency Petitioner for Enforcement of Crime Victim
+Rights before the Honorable Kenneth A. Marra,
+pursuant to Notice, taken before Victoria Aiello,
+Court Reporter, pages 1-32.
+
+For the Plaintiff: Bradley Edwards, Esquire
+
+For the Defendant: Dexter Lee [REDACTED]
+
+(Call toOrder of the Court).
+
+THE COURT: Good morning. Please be seated.
+
+This is the case of In Re: Jane Doe, Case Number 08-80736-Civ-Marra. May I have counsel state their appearances, please?
+
+MR. LEE: Good morning, Your Honor. May it please the Court, for the United States of America, we have Maria , Assistant United States Attorney and Dexter Lee, Assistant United States Attorney. And we have seated in the front row FBI Special Agent Becker Kendall and Jason Richards. Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Good morning, Your Honor. Brad Edwards on behalf of the petitioners. Petitioners are also in the courtroom today. This petition is styled on her behalf.
+
+THE COURT: Good morning. All right. We're here on the petitioner's motion to enforce her rights as a victim under 18 USC 3771. I have received the petition, the government's response and the victim's reply, which was filed, I guess, this morning. So, You want to proceed, counsel?.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Yes, Your Honor. You prefer me at the podium?
+
+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, as a factual background, Mr. Epstein is a billionaire that sexually abused and molested dozens and dozens of girls between the ages of 13 and 17 years old. And through cooperating victims, that evidence can be proven. Because of his deviant appetite for young girls, combined with his extraordinary wealth and power, he may just be the most dangerous sexual predator in U.S. history. This petitioner is one of the victims and she is in attendance today. Another one of Mr. Epstein's victims is also in attendance today. She would be able to provide evidence that she provided-- that Mr. Epstein paid her to provide him over 50 girls for the purposes of him to sexually abuse. Therefore, the undercurrents of the petition are clear. The plea bargain that was worked out for Mr. Epstein in light of the offenses that he committed is clearly unfair to the point that if anybody looks at the information, it is unconscionable.
+
+21 22 23 24 THE COURT: Well, I mean, is that for me? That's not my role. That's the prosecutor's role to apply, would it not? I can't force them to bring criminal charges. What do I have to do with that.
+
+THE COURT: That may be your opinion, that may be your client's opinion, but I presume that the government is aware that that's your client's opinion. How does that change anything?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: That's my problem. I'm not sure that the government is aware that is petitioner's opinion and that's why we're here today, just to enforce the victim's rights under 18 USC 3771, Crime Victims Rights Act, and all we are asking is to order that the plea agreement that has been negotiated in this case--
+
+THE COURT: How do you know there is a plea agreement? The plea agreement is with the State of Florida, wasn't it?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: There was a state charge with one victim that I'm aware of. And the plea agreement as to that one victim was 18 months in the county jail. But along with that, the Palm Beach County Sheriff investigating this case was getting no action out of the local authorities and sent this to the FBI.
+
+THE COURT: It was actually the Palm Beach-- Town of Palm Beach Police, not the Sheriff's Office.
+
+1 2 why the FBI got involved because Michael Feeter wrote a scathing letter to the State Attorney about
+
+3 4 Mr. Epstein receiving preferencial treatment by local authorities.
+
+5 6 Before the FBI took the case, they went behind the victim's back, and this is our motion,
+
+7 8 without the victim's input and allowing her the right to meaningfully confer with the government,
+
+9 which is a right that she can assert at this time.
+
+10 11 They worked out a plea deal where if Mr. Epstein would plead to this other charge regarding another
+
+12 13 14 victim in the state court case, they would agree to not prosecute him for all of the federal charges of what they were aware of in federal court..
+
+15 16 THE COURT: So that's already apparently taken place, correct?
+
+17 18 19 20 MR. EDWARDS: I don't know if it has taken place. I'm not sure exactly what stage it is in. I know it is supposed to be attached at some point in time to a state court plea.
+
+21 22 THE COURT: Hasn't he already plead guilty, though?
+
+23 24 25 MR. EDWARDS: If he did plead guilty, it is my understanding and belief that the agreement with the federal government and with the U.S. Attorney's 1 2 3 Office wasn't signed on that day. So it is still my belief, I could be wrong, but that that agreement hasn't been completed as of this time.
+
+4 5 THE COURT: So let's assume it hasn't been completed.
+
+6 7 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. Then petitioner would like the right to confer with--
+
+8 9 10 11 12 13 THE COURT: You can go in the conference room. We've got the FBI agents, you've got the assigned prosecuting attorney. You have got a conference room. You've got your client. Go and talk. Confer. And then it is up government to decide what to do, correct?
+
+14 15 16 17 MR. EDWARDS: In a way, Your Honor, that's very similar to what happened in In Re: Dean and PB case where there is a plea agreement negotiated and then the victim gets the right to confer.
+
+18 19 THE COURT: It's already negotiated. What am I supposed to do?
+
+20 21 22 MR. EDWARDS: Order that the agreement that was negotiated is invalid and it is illegal as it did not pertain to the rights of the victim.
+
+23 24 25 THE COURT: I can order you into the conference room. Then the government can do what it chooses. It can agree to prosecute or it can agree
+
+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 to going forward with the agreement it had already reached and after consulting your client and in taking into consideration your client's views, decide to go forward anyway. I can't make them prosecute him. I can't-- All I can do is, at best, say confer with the victim, consider the victim's input before you make a decision or reconsider the decision you already made in view of the victim's input, if it is possible for you to do that. So if I invalidate the agreement, what's the best you can get? The right to confer?
+
+12 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly. That is all we can.
+
+13 14 15 THE COURT: So why can't you go into the conference room now, take as much time as you feel you need and confer?
+
+16 17 18 19 MR. EDWARDS: Judge, at this time I'd like to move ore tenus to add the victim that's in the courtroom to this conference with the U.S. Attorney's Office.
+
+20 21 THE COURT: So is that Jane Doe 2 for purposes of this?
+
+22 MR. EDWARDS: Exactly, Your Honor.
+
+23 24 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the government then.
+
+please the Court. Let me update the Court on the
+
+status of
+
+various matters. The agreement to defer prosecution
+
+to the State of Florida was signed and completed by
+
+December of 2007. Mr. Epstein's attorneys saught a
+
+higher review within the Department of Justice and
+
+it took a number of months for that to come to
+
+fruition. When it came to fruition, he ended up
+
+pleading guilty on June 30, 2008 to two charges in
+
+state court, and he was sentenced to a term of
+
+incarceration of 18 months, with another 12 months
+
+of community control after the completion of his
+
+sentence, and he is currently incarcerated as we
+
+speak.
+
+We have two arguments, Your Honor. First,
+
+insofar as the right that they claim under
+
+3771(a) (5), their right to confer in the case, we
+
+respectfully submit that there was no case in
+
+federal court and, indeed, none was contemplated if
+
+the plea agreement was to be successfully completed,
+
+since it contemplated the State of Florida sentence
+
+on the criminal charges. So as long as certain
+
+conditions were met and certain federal interests
+
+were vindicated, the federal government was
+
+Insofar as the best effort, Your Honor, we have cited the Attorney General's guidelines. The guidelines do say that you should normally advise victims of plea negotiations and the terms of the plea, but they recognize that there are times when they may not be appropriate or could cause some harm or prejudice, and they set out six factors which are to be considered, non-exhaustive factors.
+
+We have advised, in the declaration of
+
+that when the subject of having Mr.
+
+Epstein concede that he would be convicted of an enumerated offense for purposes of a cause of action under 18 USC 2255, there was a rather strenuous objection from Mr. Epstein's counsel that the federal government was inducing some effort to either fabricate claims, enhance claims or embellish claims and if this agreement ultimately could not be consumated, then we'd have a federal prosecution on our hands, and we did not want to be in a positin of creating additional impeachment material.
+
+I can't say that the stand by Mr. Edwards that the arguments of inducement in a subsequent civil action can be made by any criminal victim, that is true. It is another thing for that inducement to have come before the prosecution
+
+10 11 claim or seek enforcement of his or her rights under the statute before a case is filed? What does that
+
+12 refer to?
+
+13 14 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we believe that's a venue provision essentially telling an individual if
+
+15 16 there is no exigent case, there is no case of United States versus So And So, then you seek to enforce
+
+17 18 your rights, then you can go in and do so in the did court where the offense occurred. This is not
+
+19 20 saying, necessarily, that rights exist, but if you believe they exist, here is the place where you're
+
+21 22 going to have to lodge it, and the Court will have to decide.
+
+23 24 Now, there are certain of the eight rights accorded in 3771(a) that could come up before any
+
+arguing about the credibility and veracity of the individual.
+
+That was a considerably strong point, in
+
+essence, in not discussing those terms with the
+
+victims as might ordinarily be done if those
+
+considerations did not exist.
+
+So, first, Your Honor, we believe that
+
+3771(a)(5) does not apply.
+
+THE COURT: Well, what about the language in the statute that suggests that a victim can bring a
+
+believes that the perpetrator of the crime is going to try to 10 11 harm them or threatened them or intimidated them into not testifying or cooperating with the government and, of course, no indictment has been returned. If an individual went to the government and believed that the individual had not acted appropriately, they can go to the district court and say I need to have my rights under 3771(a)(1) enforced because those people are threatening me, and the government hasn't done enough. That would be a situation.
+
+12 13 14 15 But we're talking really here about (a) (5), which is the right to consult in the case and we respectfully submit that there is not case until a charge has been filed.
+
+16 17 18 THE COURT: So, what about the circuit case that was actually pending case had to do with a plea agreement in a pending case?
+
+19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEE: Yes. The distinction between the Dean case and the instant case, Your Honor, is this. In Dean, they had negotiated with BP Petroleum for a plea and it was always contemplated that there was going to be a federal prosecution. The distinction in this case was that there was already a pending state prosecution and the
+
+1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 objective for both sides was to keep it in state court and the federal government's objective was to ensure that there were sufficient safeguards in the state court proceedings and concessions made by Mr. Epstein so that federal interests, particularly a cause of action for damages for the victims of the sexual exploitation could be preserved. So that's the key distinction because there was no federal case, there was no federal criminal charge contemplate so long as the agreement could be reached.
+
+12 13 THE COURT: All right. So they want me to invalidate your non-prosecution agreement.
+
+14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEE: Your Honor, we respectfully submit that 3771 does not grant authority of this Court to do so. In the Dean case, for instance, Your Honor, there was a plea agreement that was entered into and district court, of course, entertained a plea agreement and exercised its judicial discretion in terms of whether to accept it or not. The victims were encouraged to go to district court and say, you know, we didn't hear about this. We should have, and we object to it for the following reasons. The district court take that into account. There is no plea agreement before this Court. There will be no
+
+1 2 3 plea proceedings in this court. That was all done in state court several weeks ago. So that's another basis for distinguishing Dean.
+
+4 5 THE COURT: All right. So is there any point in conferring with these victims?
+
+6 7 8 9 MR. LEE: Your Honor, I will always confer, sit down with Jane Doe 1 and 2, with the two agents and Ms. . We'll be happy to sit down with them.
+
+10 11 12 13 14 15 THE COURT: But it wouldn't make any difference in terms of the outcome. Would maybe give them the benefit of your explanation of why you did what you did and why you came to the conclusion you did, but it is not going to change your decision in any way.
+
+16 17 18 MR. LEE: If it is going to change, it would have to be done at a level higher than mine, Your Honor.
+
+19 20 21 22 23 24 THE COURT: What was-- I didn't understand your statement earlier that Mr. Epstein wanted some kind of review of higher authority within the Department in terms of whether or not the federal government was going to insist on preserving any civil claims.
+
+consumated by the parties in December of 2007. Mr. Epstein's attorneys wanted a further review of the agreement higher up within the Department of Justice and they exercised their ability to do that.
+
+THE COURT: Meaning? Again, I'm trying to understand. He wasn't happy with the agreement that he had signed?
+
+MR. LEE: Basically, yes. And was trying to maintain that the agreement should be set aside or more favorable terms.
+
+THE COURT: Now, in terms of -- You don't dispute that Jane Doe 1 and 2-- First of all, do you have an objection to Jane Doe 2 being added as a petitioner in this case?
+
+MR. LEE: No, I don't.
+
+THE COURT: I'll grant that request.
+
+You don't dispute that they're victims within the meaning of the Act.
+
+MR. LEE: It depends to which -- There is one Jane Doe-- Well, there is one individual who is one of Mr. Edwards' clients who we do not believe to been a victim. If these are SN and CW, then we have no objection and I can discuss-- If I may have a moment, Your Honor.
+
+1 corrected. We have no objection.
+
+2 THE COURT: Okay.
+
+3 MR. LEE: We agree they're victims.
+
+4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 THE COURT: Now, what is your position, then, regarding the right of a victim of a crime that is potentially subject to federal prosecution to be, to have input with the prosecutor, your office, before a resolution or decision not to prosecute is made? Do you say that there is no right to confer under those circumstances because there is no "case pending" so any decision not to prosecute, there is no right to confer but that right to confer only is triggered once there is an indictment or an information filed?
+
+15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. LEE: That is correct, Your Honor. The Attorney General guidelines which were published in May of 2005 provide that the rights in 3771(a)(1 through 8) accrue when a charge is filed in federal court. Now, that my change after the Dean decision. It is under consideration. But that's the government's position.
+
+22 23 THE COURT: All right. And so -- Are you saying all of the rights--
+
+24 25 MR. LEE: Your Honor, some of the rights clearly will only pertain after a charge has been
+
+filed. The one that pertains to notice of public hearing, public proceedings, though, can't apply until there are public proceedings to be had.
+
+Of course, these guidelines are a floor and not a ceiling. They're to be applied with common sense. If somebody-- If charges of assault were being investigated and somebody would come in and say the perpetrator whom you're investigating is getting ready to indict has been threatening me, following me, and I need help because he or she is going to do something bad to me and try to take care of me before I can testify in the grand jury, this person would not be turned away because a charge hasn't been filed yet. Those guidelines would be applied with common sense.
+
+But specifically insofar as a (a) (5), which is the right to consult with the attorney for the government in the case, that would not accrue until there is a days. And, in our view, a case doesn't come into being until charges are filed.
+
+THE COURT: And are there any reported decisions that you are aware of where any court has found a right to confer before charges are filed?
+
+1 THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
+
+2 MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+3 THE COURT: Counsel?
+
+4 5 6 7 8 9 MR. EDWARDS: I would just like to address that Dean decision. They're asking you that you just simply ignore it because the decision clearly was a decision made because as it is a direct result of a plea deal being worked out prior to the victims being able to speak.
+
+10 11 THE COURT: But there was a pending case, though, correct?
+
+12 MR. EDWARDS: As I understand the decision--
+
+13 14 15 16 17 18 19 THE COURT: As I understand the plea deal, it was negotiated prior to charges being filed. Then there was a filed case and then the court had the ability to accept the plea or not. And at that point, you would have the ability to entertain or assert an objection because you weren't consulted about the plea.
+
+20 21 22 23 24 25 So there was a proceeding or case in which you can assert a right to confer. How do you do that before a case is filed? How do you enforce the government or force the government to consult about not filing a case? Every case they have to consult with the victim before they decide not to prosecute?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: No, there are limitations. I
+
+think in my reply I refer to the case of U.S. I. Rubin where they discussed that very scenario stating there at least has to be criminal charges contemplate by the government before these rights kick in. The rights under (d)(3) and (a)(5), the right to confer and the Dean case clearly states clearly rights under the CBRA apply before prosecution is under way. Logically, this includes the CBRA establishments of a victim's reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the government. And, that's read in the plain reading of the statutes as well.
+
+This first case in interpreting it, I think it's pretty clear the distinction they're making between BP and this case. Is it a distinction withoug a real difference in that the court is saying you have this right before the case is filed which is exactly what we are saying. And the result in that case was they filed the case, later let him plea out to some sweet deal. And in this case, what we have is they avoid that by deciding not to file. Either way, you deprive the victim of their right before making that decision.
+
+10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Dean, as it states, the victims do have rights when there is an impact and the eventual sent is substantially less. Whereas here, their input is received after the parties have reached a tentative deal. Well, the government just stated the deal was reached back in October of 2007. However, attached to their response is a letter to my client petitioner, dated January 10, 2008, after the time then counsel just put on the record that the deal was already finalized and it starts, the opening paragraph talks about whether they wanted the victims to have the right to confer. It says, this case is currently under investigation. This is January 2008. This case has been a lengthy process and we request your continued patience while we conduct a thorough investigation. Sounds like the exact opposite of, we want you to come in and confer and let us know what you really feel about this.
+
+19 20 21 22 23 24 25 That is our biggest problem with what has happened here, is that she just wasn't given a voice and if somebody would have heard her, we believe there would have been a different outcome. To go back into a room right now and talk, after there has already been a plea negotiated without Your Honor ordering that in this case the plea deal needs to be 1 vacated, it is illegal and give her her rights.
+
+2 THE COURT: Well, would you agree or not that Mr.
+
+3 Epstein plead guilty to the state charges
+
+4 probably at least, in part, in reliance upon the
+
+5 fact that he had an agreement with the federal
+
+6 government they weren't going to prosecute? Would
+
+7 you concede that or would would present evidence to
+
+8 that effect?
+
+9 MR. EDWARDS: Of course we would. Yes, of
+
+10 course. Sure.
+
+11 THE COURT: So you agree that Mr. Epstein is
+
+12 now sitting in the Palm Beach County Jail a
+
+13 convicted felon serving 18 months of imprisonment,
+
+14 at least in material part, because he relied upon
+
+15 the government's non-prosecution agreement?
+
+16 MR. EDWARDS: Yes. I agree that he is sitting
+
+17 there because he is guilty and maybe he took the
+
+18 plea rather than going to trial and being found
+
+19 guilty later in part because of this non-prosecution
+
+20 agreement that was worked out behind the other
+
+21 victims' backs. I would agree with that.
+
+22 THE COURT: So he accepted the State's deal
+
+23 in part because he knew he had an agreement from the
+
+24 federal government that they weren't going to
+
+MR. EDWARDS: I presume. I speculate that is true.
+
+THE COURT: So you want me now, then, to set aside the government's agreement with him because there was no conferring, yet he has already accepted a plea agreement and is sitting in custody, in part, in reliance on that agreement. I mean, I can undo the agreement in your theory, but how do I-- Mr. Epstein, in a sense, would then be adversely affected by my actions when he acted in reliance upon the agreement. How does that work?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Certainly, we're only asking you to vacate the agreement. I understand and your point is well taken. And I believe that at that point in time his rights may kick in and say, wait, I was relying on this other deal so I wouldn't be prosecuted for these hundreds of other girls that I molested; that I plead guilty over here to the one girl that I will admit to molesting. So maybe I can get to withdraw my plea. But the last thing he wants to do because if he ends up going to trial, I'll be in prison for the rest of his life like any other person who ever did this crime would be. He could have that argument, I guess, but still wouldn't really work well for him.
+
+THE COURT: All right. So you still think I should set aside the agreement, require the government to confer?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Work out a plea negotiation commensorate with the crimes that he committed and that are favorable after they confer with the victims. And it is within their discretion. Of course, they can decide on their own that, hey, I think that the agreement was fair after they have talked with the victims. That could happen. I don't know if a reasonable person that would do that, but it could happen.
+
+THE COURT: Apparently, you are not suggesting that that these person are not reasonable.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: I'm suggesting they haven't conferred with the victims and that if they took into consideration what these two in the courtroom have to say, I don't think that we'd be in this same position right now.
+
+THE COURT: They have never spoken to your client about what happened to them?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: They have spoken to them about what happened. Maybe not about what the girls wanted to happen as a result of this case, which is
+
+part of conferring to decide that these girls wanted money on their own, which is basically what this-- this non-prosecution agreement entails that has language that he'll agree to liability in a civil case. That's not what these girls-- They want justice. They want him in prison now more than ever. The reason they stated they kept this agreement from the girls and they basically conceded we didn't tell the girls about this agreement, well, the reason is because they would have objected and they wouldn't have been able to sign off on this and the victims would have had a voice, and we'd still been going through litigation. The exact problem they tried to prevent, at least in their terms which was the impeachment of these girls at a later trial, is still available to anybody once the civil suits are filed anyway.
+
+They have three arguments. One, we didn't have to talk to them. Two, we did talk to them sort of. And if you don't buy that, the reason we didn't talk to them, we were trying to prevent them from being impeached later. None of them trump the victims' rights to confer prior to plea negotiations. That's why, Your Honor, we would ask this Court to enter an order vacating that previous
+
+10 THE COURT: Now, having learned today, I guess, that the agreement was signed when, in October?
+
+11 MR. EDWARDS: October 2007, I heard.
+
+12 13 14 15 16 17 18 THE COURT: About eight or nine months ago, is there any need to rush to a decision in this matter? The decision has already been made. You filed this, I think, on the presumption that the agreement was about to take place and you wanted to be able to confer beforehand and you weren't sure what was going on.
+
+19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. EDWARDS: Precisely, Your Honor. And I'm holding the letters that are exhibits that they were writing to my client during the year of 2008 telling her how lengthy of a process this was going to be and be patient. So, right, I was completely in the dark about when this agreement was signed.
+
+plea agreement as illegal, ask them to confer with the victims once again or for the first time and work out a negotiated plea to that accord.
+
+THE COURT: Well, all you can ask them to do is confer. I can't ask them to do anything beyond that. I mean, it is up to them to negotiate.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: I wouldn't quarrel with that.
+
+agreement has already been consumated, and you want me to set it aside, as opposed to something that's about to occur, would you agree that-- and I have done this very quickly because of the petition and your allegation that something was about to happen. I'm not blaming you.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: I was mistaken.
+
+THE COURT: I'm not blaming you for doing that. In view of what you know now, is there any need to treat this as an emergency that has to be decided by tomorrow?
+
+MR. EDWARDS: I can't think of any reason in light of what we just heard.
+
+THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have anything else you wanted to add? Does either side think I need to take evidence about anything? If I do, since this is not an emergency anymore, I can probably find a more convenient time to do that. I don't have the time today to take evidence. But if you do believe that I should take evidence on this issue.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: It may be best if I conferred with the U.S. Attorney's Office on that and we can make a decision whether it is necessary or whether Your Honor deemed it was necessary for you to make a 10 11 12 13 14 government's is as to what actions were taken. And I don't know if I have enough information, based on Ms. affidavit or I need additional information. And because it is not an emergency, I don't have to do something quickly, we can play it be ear and make this into a more complete record for the court of appeals.
+
+15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. EDWARDS: If there is a time where it is necessary to take evidence, Your Honor is correct in stating that it is not an emergency and it doesn't need to happen today. And, I will confer with the government on this and if evidence needs to be taken, it be taken at a later date. It doesn't seem like there will be any prejudice to any party.
+
+22 23 THE COURT: Mr. Lee, do you have any thoughts? You want to consult with Mr. Edwards?
+
+24 25 MR. LEE: There may be a couple of factual matters that I need to chat with petitioner's
+
+decision.
+
+THE COURT: I want to know what your respective positions are because it may be something
+
+in terms of having a complete record, and this is going to be an issue that's it going to go to the Eleventh Circuit, may be better to have a complete record as to what your position is and the
+
+1 2 3 4 5 6 counsel on. If we can reach agreement on those as to what was communicated to CW and what time, if they don't dispute that, then we don't think it will be necessary to have an evidentiary hearing. But if we can agree, fine or maybe we can't. We'll talk about it.
+
+7 8 9 10 11 THE COURT: All right. So why don't you let me know if you think an evidentiary hearing is necessary. If there are additional stipulations you want to enter into or supplement what has already been presented, you can do that.
+
+12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Now, the other issue I want to take up, though, is the government filed its response to the petition under seal. And so I want to know why. What is in there that at this point needs to be under seal? Is there anything in there that's confidential, privileged, anything that's different from what you hve said here in open court that requires that to be sealed?
+
+20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEE: Well, Your Honor, on our motion to seal was based on two reasons. One that dealt with individuals or minors at the time that the offense occurred. So we were attempting to protect the privacy of those individuals. And also it dealt with negotiations with Mr. Epstein which were in the 1 2 3 nature of plea negotiations, which we treat as confidential. Normally, they're not aired out in open court. So those were our two reasons.
+
+4 5 6 THE COURT: All right. But I guess the letters you attached only related to Mr. Edwards' client.
+
+7 MR. LEE: Three of them, yes, Your Honor.
+
+8 9 10 THE COURT: Are you prepared, Mr. Edwards, to waive any issues regarding the release of those documents that relate to your clients?
+
+11 12 13 MR. EDWARDS: Judge, I think it would be appropriate to redact the names of the clients as they have done.
+
+14 15 THE COURT: I don't think the names are in there.
+
+16 17 18 19 MR. EDWARDS: I think they're redacted. They're blacked out. I have no problem with releasing those documents. I'm not sure that's part of the deal. But if it is--
+
+20 MR. LEE: It is.
+
+21 MR. EDWARDS: Okay. I'll waive.
+
+22 23 24 THE COURT: You really don't have any objection to those letters that were sent to them being released to the public?
+
+THE COURT: Then what is there about the plea agreement or the negotiations that is in the response that we really haven't already kind of--
+
+MR. LEE: Your Honor, there was a confidentiality agreement in the deferral of prosecution to the State of Florida. So we were trying to maintain the confidentiality of the negotiations that occurred since we had discussions during those negotiations as one of the reasons why we decided not to tell all of the individuals what was going on.
+
+THE COURT: But is that still necessary, that confidentiality or is that kind of moot at this point?
+
+MR. LEE: Well, we would like it sealed. Admittedly, what happened today in open court has probably weakened our argument. I don't dispute that.
+
+THE COURT: In your opinion, anything in particular, any paragraph in the response or in Ms. affidavit that you think is particularly troublesome that should remain under seal?
+
+> MR. LEE: May I have a moment, Your Honor? THE COURT: Yes.
+
+10 THE COURT: But hasn't the fact that this provision was part of the agreement again been aired? Is there any secret to it anymore?
+
+11 12 13 14 MR. LEE: The actual text of it has not been aired. The existence of it has been heard but the actual text has not and we believe it should still remain confidential.
+
+15 16 THE COURT: Okay. Any other argument on that issue?
+
+17 MR. LEE: No, Your Honor. Thank you.
+
+18 19 THE COURT: Ms. wants to speak to you.
+
+20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. LEE: Your Honor, one item that I'd like to bring to the Court's attention. We had advised Mr. Epstein and his attorneys that if we were to dislose some of the agreement, we would give them advance notice and ability to lodge an objection. We would like an opportunity to do that.
+
+of this in the notification letters that were dispatched to individuals which were attached to Ms.
+
+declaration, there is a citation to a clause in the agreement that was reached regarding the damages remedy under 18 USC 2255 that was subject to the constitutionality agreement, we believe that should still remain confidential.
+
+THE COURT: All right. But you're not disclosing. It would be by my order that it would be disclosed.
+
+MR. LEE: Yes, Your Honor. And we just would like to register that we believe it should remain confidential.
+
+THE COURT: All right.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I don't see any authority for keeping that under seal.
+
+THE COURT: I agree. The fact that there is this preserved right on behalf of the victims to pursue a civil action is already a matter of public record; the exact text of the clause-- I don't see that disclosing the text of the clause when the fact that the clause exists is already a matter of public record. It is not harmful in any way to Mr. Epstein or the government and the letters to the victim that the victim can disclose those letters, they're not under any confidentiality obligation or restriction and they're free to disclose it themselves if they choose to. So I don't see that there is any real public necessity to keep the response sealed in view of what we discussed already on the record and the victim's ability to disclose those provisions of their own choosing, if they wish. So, in view of
+
+the public policy that matters filed in court proceedings should be open to the public and sealing should only occur in circumstances that justife the need to restrict public access, I'm going to deny the motion to seal the response and allow that to be viewed.
+
+All right. So I'll let both of you confer about whether there is a need for any additional evidence to be presented. Let me know one way or the other. If there is, we'll schedule a hearing. If there isn't and you want to submit some additional stipulated information, do that, and then I'll take care of this in due course.
+
+MR. EDWARDS: Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+THE COURT: All right.
+
+MR. LEE: Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+MS. : Thank you, Your Honor.
+
+THE COURT: You're welcome.
+
+(Proceedings concluded.)
+
+1
+
+2
+
+3
+
+4
+
+5
+
+6
+
+7
+
+8
+
+9
+
+10
+
+11
+
+12
+
+I hereby certify that the foregoing is true
+
+and correct to the best of my ability.
+
+![]()Victoria Aiello, Court Reporter
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a638c4b17e05d4ff9fdbe59f82d11ee38a976df0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205797/EFTA00205797.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,1174 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205797.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 33,
+ "chars": 35052,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.18,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 492.04800000000006,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 492.04800000000006,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 256.428,
+ 105.30000000000001
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 17
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 14,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 15,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 103
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 16,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 17,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 18,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 19,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 20,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 21,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 22,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 23,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 24,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 25,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 26,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 27,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 28,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 29,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 30,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 105
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 53
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 31,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 93
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 32,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205797"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b36e3a620f8bd6f7b218133abb8c9ae6c8984763
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.md
@@ -0,0 +1,134 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOES #1 AND #2,
+
+Plaintiffs,
+
+vs.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective order against disclosure of certain correspondences at issue in Plaintiffs' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE 51), the Court will defer ruling on the latter motion until the intervention motion is ripe for review.
+
+# Background'
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are alleged victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County. Between 2001 and 2007, Epstein sexually abused multiple underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion, including Plaintiffs. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein was inducing underage girls to engage in sexual acts. The case was eventually presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted it for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating similar allegations against Epstein. Plaintiffs allege that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence.
+
+In June 2007, the FBI delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard victim-notification letter, which explained that the case against Epstein was "under investigation" and notified Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). In August 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a similar notification letter.
+
+In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office began plea discussions. The negotiations led to an agreement under which Epstein would plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the U.S.
+
+This background discussion is based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act (DE I) and the Statement of Material Facts in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52). These allegations are not yet supported by evidence and the Court relies on them here solely to provide the context for the threshold legal issues addressed in this order. As discussed below, further factual development is necessary to resolve the additional issues raised in Plaintiffs' motions.
+
+Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office executed a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") under these terms.
+
+Plaintiffs contend that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with them regarding the plea discussions and, in fact, intentionally kept secret the negotiations and the NPA. From September 24, 2007, the day on which the NPA was executed, through June 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not notify either Plaintiff of the existence of the NPA.
+
+During this period, Plaintiffs communicated multiple times with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, but neither Plaintiff was informed of the NPA. On January 10, 2008, the FBI sent letters to Plaintiffs advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation," but failing to disclose the existence of the NPA. On January 32, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI agents and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss her abuse by Epstein. The government did not disclose the existence of the NPA. In mid-June 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") handling their case to discuss the status of the investigation. The AUSA did not disclose the existence of the NPA. On June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office notified Plaintiffs' counsel that Epstein was scheduled to plead guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose the existence of the NPA nor the relationship between Epstein's state plea and the U.S. Attorney's Office's agreement to forgo federal charges. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office stating Jane Doe #1's desire that it bring federal charges against Epstein.
+
+On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the CVRA! Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this development, had violated her rights under the CVRA. The United States responded to the petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government's response also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.
+
+On July 11, 2008, this Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1's petition, at which Jane Doe #2 was added as a plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that their petition did not present an emergency and that therefore an immediate resolution was not necessary. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference and ordered the United States to turn over the NPA to all identified victims, including Plaintiffs, and further ordered the parties to work out the terms of a protective order governing the NPA's disclosure.
+
+This action was relatively inactive for the next year and one-half while Plaintiffs litigated civil actions against Epstein. After those cases settled, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve their CVRA dispute with the U.S. Attorney's Office. On March 18, 2011, after the parties' settlement efforts failed, Plaintiffs filed a series of motions, which the Court now addresses in turn, along with Motion to Intervene.
+
+x27;Jane Doe #2 joined this action after Jane Doe #1 filed the initial Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act.
+
+# I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
+
+The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure them involvement in the criminal justice process. United Stalest Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4ih Cir. 2007); Kenna,. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the following eight rights:
+
+- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
+- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
+- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
+- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
+- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
+- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
+- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
+- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
+
+18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+
+If a prosecution is underway, the CVRA grants victims standing to vindicate their rights in the ongoing criminal action. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If, however, a prosecution is not underway, the victims may initiate a new action under the CVRA in the district court of the
+
+district where the crime occurred.' Id. The statute also tasks the district courts and the prosecutors with the responsibility of protecting these rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("[T]he court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); § 3771(c)(1) ("Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).").
+
+Here, Plaintiffs first argue that as a matter of law the CVRA's protections attach before a formal charge is filed against the criminal defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that the CVRA applied here and that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights; namely, their rights to confer, to be treated with fairness, and to accurate and timely notice of court proceedings. Based on these violations, Plaintiffs request that this Court set a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy, which according to Plaintiffs is to invalidate the nonprosecution agreement.
+
+The United States argues that as a matter of law the CVRA does not apply before formal charges are filed, i.e., before an indictment or similar charging document, and therefore does not apply here because formal charges were never filed against Epstein. The United States further argues that even if the CVRA applied here, the U.S. Attorney's Office complied with its requirements.
+
+The Court first addresses the threshold issue whether the CVRA attaches before the government brings formal charges against the defendant The Court holds that it does because the
+
+Here, because no criminal case was pending, Plaintiffs filed their petition as a new matter in this judicial district, which the Clerk of Court docketed as a civil action.
+
+statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge proceedings. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) provide rights that attach to "any public court proceeding ... involving the crime." Similarly, subsection (b) requires courts to ensure CVRA rights in "any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim." Court proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge. By way of example, under Rule 5(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon arrest the defendant must be taken before a magistrate judge "without unnecessary delay" for an initial appearance. If the arrest takes place on a weekday, "without unnecessary delay" will typically require that the initial appearance occur the following morning, which will often be within twenty-four hours of arrest. See United States,. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697, 702 (56 Cir. 1973) (holding that the government satisfied Rule 5's "without unnecessary delay" requirement by bringing the defendant before the magistrate judge on the first weekday morning following the arrest). By contrast, Rule 5(b) requires that where the defendant is arrested without a warrant, the government must file the complaint "promptly." The Supreme Court has interpreted "promptly" under Rule 5(b) as generally requiring that the complaint be filed within forty-eight hours of arrest. Cnty. Of Riverside.. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991). It is therefore possible that where the defendant is arrested on a weekday without a warrant, the initial appearance—which may also involve the detention or bond hearing under Rule 5(d)(3)—will take place before the government files the criminal complaint.
+
+Subsection (cX1) requires that "Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or
+
+prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights in subsection (a)." (Emphasis added). Subsection (c)(I)'s requirement that officials engaged in "detection [or] investigation" afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.
+
+Subsection (d)(3) explains that the CVRA's enumerated rights "shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." (Emphasis added). If the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime.
+
+This interpretation is consistent with other federal decisions that have addressed the scope of the CVRA. For instance, in In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5\* Cir. 2008), the court held that subsection (a)(5)'s "right to confer" applied before any prosecution is underway. Id. at 394. Specifically, the court explained:
+
+The district court acknowledged that "there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain.
+
+Id. at 394 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal district courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States'. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing victims' "ability to seek pre-prosecution relief' under the CVRA); United States.. Okun, No. 08-132, 2009 WL 790042, at '2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) ("[T]he Fifth
+
+Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt."); United States" BP Prods N. Am. Inc., No. 07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at \*11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) ("There are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean 527 F.3d 391 (5ih Cir. 2008).
+
+The United States argues that because the CVRA accords rights related to "any court proceeding," 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(b)(1), (d)(3), and "in the case," § 3771(b)(5), the CVRA applies only after formal charges are filed. The Court finds this argument unavailing. First, as discussed above, "court proceedings" can occur before formal charges are filed. Similarly, subsection (a)(5)'s reference to the right to confer with "the attorney for the Government in the case," is not limited to post-charge proceedings, as the United States is represented by attorneys in each criminal case at, for example, initial appearances and bond hearings.' Last, the government's interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections, such as subsection (c)(1)'s mandate that U.S. agencies involved at the "detection" and "investigation" stage use their best efforts to accord victims their enumerated rights under the CVRA and subsection (d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA
+
+For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at \*2 (holding that a "victim's 'right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy' may apply before any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a `court proceeding' or `case,'" but concluding that "the right 'to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case' ... arise[s] only after charges have been brought against a defendant and a case has been opened"). But see In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394 (holding that under subsection (a)(5), "the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges").
+
+rights even if "no prosecution is underway." See United States.. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11ih Cir. 1999) ("[W]e read the statute to give full effect to each of its provisions. We do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire statutory context.") (citation omitted).
+
+The Court also rejects the United States' argument that pre-charge CVRA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making. Any encroachment into the prosecutors' discretion is expressly limited by the CVRA itself, which provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). As the court explained in Rubin, "there is absolutely no suggestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime, set strategy, or object to or appeal pretrial or in limine orders .... In short, the CVRA, for the most part, gives victims a voice, not a veto." 558 F. Supp. at 418; see also BP Prods N. Am., 2008 WL 501321, at \*15 ("Even under an expansive approach, the reasonable right to confer on a proposed plea agreement and the government's obligation to provide notice of that right is subject to the limit that the CVRA not impair prosecutorial discretion."). Thus, to the extent that the victims' pre-charge CVRA rights impinge upon prosecutorial discretion, under the plain language of the statute those rights must yield.
+
+Having determined that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed, the Court must address whether the particular rights asserted here attached and, if so, whether the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights. However, the Court lacks a factual record to support such findings and must therefore defer ruling on these two issues pending the limited discovery discussed below.
+
+# II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
+
+For the reasons stated on the record at the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' request to have their facts accepted as true.
+
+# III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence
+
+Plaintiffs request an order from the Court "directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case." (DE 50 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek all information and material known to the government that may be favorable to the victims regarding possible violations of their rights under the CVRA. The United States opposes the motion, arguing that neither the CVRA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to Plaintiffs here.
+
+At the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the United States agreed that this Court, under its inherent authority to manage this case, could impose discovery obligations on each party. Because the Court finds that some factual development is necessary to resolve the remaining issues in this case, it will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Either party may request additional discovery if necessary.
+
+Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on Plaintiffs' motion.
+
+#### Iv. 11 Order Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule
+
+ut.t C. scut beeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and improperly represented Epstein victims in follow-on civil suits. (DE 48 at 22). Plaintiffs contend that such conduct "give[s], at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry [favor] with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment." (DE 48 at 23). Reinhart takes great offense to these accusation—which he contends are false, irrelevant to the CVRA claims, and gratuitous—and seeks intervention to rebut these allegations and move for sanctions.
+
+Under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." It is "wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b) and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention." In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th 2006). The Court will denyrequest to intervene.
+
+First, the Court finds that claim does not share a common question of law or fact with the CVRA action. Reinhart claims that two paragraphs of Plaintiffs' forty-page motion make groundless and bad-faith accusations against his integrity and character. However, the veracity of Plaintiffs' two paragraphs—i.e., whether4WMIumt used his position at the U.S. Attorney's Office to ingratiate himself with Epstein and advance his career in private practice—involves no common questions with the Plaintiffs' claims that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights through the process in which it entered into the NPA with Epstein. Indeed, motion argues that the allegations against him are "irrelevant" and that Plaintiffs "do[] not make any effort to connect these allegations to the relief [they] seek[]." (DE 79 at 2).
+
+Second, even if these accusations shared common questions with Plaintiffs' CVRA claims, the Court would exercise its discretion and deny intervention. The Court cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation. Absent some other concrete interest in these proceedings, the Court does not believe that the allegations here are sufficiently harmful to justify permissive intervention. Reinhart has publicly aired his opposition to and denial of Plaintiffs' contentions, both on this docket and in open court, and the Court finds that further proceedings on this issue are unwarranted. For the same reason, the Court declines to conduct a sua sponte Rule 11 inquiry.
+
+# Conclusion
+
+For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court concludes that the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed. The Court defers ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs' CVRA claims until the parties complete the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted (DE 49) is DENIED.
+
+The Court reserves ruling Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50) pending the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79) is DENIED.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 26ih day of September, 2011.
+
+> KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3beab62a939731e8fb4492342d297e554e9777b2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205830/EFTA00205830.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,737 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205830.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 14,
+ "chars": 24855,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.84,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 85.85999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 114.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.24400000000003,
+ 114.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Background'",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.568603515625,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.568603515625,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 86.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to \nContest Any of the Facts",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant \nEvidence",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 170.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 170.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 199.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 199.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Iv. \n11 Order \nMotion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 64
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205830"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c3a4dedae878b538fc683fc6600303225b90ac25
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.md
@@ -0,0 +1,136 @@
+# UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOES #1 AND #2,
+
+Plaintiffs,
+
+vs.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+#### ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective order against disclosure of certain correspondences at issue in Plaintiffs' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE 51), the Court will defer ruling on the latter motion until the intervention motion is ripe for review.
+
+### Background'
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are alleged victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County. Between 2001 and 2007, Epstein sexually abused multiple underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion, including Plaintiffs. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein was inducing underage girls to engage in sexual acts. The case was eventually presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted it for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating similar allegations against Epstein. Plaintiffs allege that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence.
+
+In June 2007, the FBI delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard victim-notification letter, which explained that the case against Epstein was "under investigation" and notified Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). In August 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a similar notification letter.
+
+In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office began plea discussions. The negotiations led to an agreement under which Epstein would plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the U.S.
+
+This background discussion is based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act (DE I) and the Statement of Material Facts in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52). These allegations are not yet supported by evidence and the Court relies on them here solely to provide the context for the threshold legal issues addressed in this order. As discussed below, further factual development is necessary to resolve the additional issues raised in Plaintiffs' motions.
+
+Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office executed a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") under these terms.
+
+Plaintiffs contend that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with them regarding the plea discussions and, in fact, intentionally kept secret the negotiations and the NPA. From September 24, 2007, the day on which the NPA was executed, through June 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not notify either Plaintiff of the existence of the NPA.
+
+During this period, Plaintiffs communicated multiple times with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, but neither Plaintiff was informed of the NPA. On January 10, 2008, the FBI sent letters to Plaintiffs advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation," but failing to disclose the existence of the NPA. On January 32, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI agents and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss her abuse by Epstein. The government did not disclose the existence of the NPA. In mid-June 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") handling their case to discuss the status of the investigation. The AUSA did not disclose the existence of the NPA. On June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office notified Plaintiffs' counsel that Epstein was scheduled to plead guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose the existence of the NPA nor the relationship between Epstein's state plea and the U.S. Attorney's Office's agreement to forgo federal charges. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office stating Jane Doe #1's desire that it bring federal charges against Epstein.
+
+On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the CVRA! Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this development, had violated her rights under the CVRA. The United States responded to the petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government's response also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.
+
+On July 11, 2008, this Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1's petition, at which Jane Doe #2 was added as a plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that their petition did not present an emergency and that therefore an immediate resolution was not necessary. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference and ordered the United States to turn over the NPA to all identified victims, including Plaintiffs, and further ordered the parties to work out the terms of a protective order governing the NPA's disclosure.
+
+This action was relatively inactive for the next year and one-half while Plaintiffs litigated civil actions against Epstein. After those cases settled, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve their CVRA dispute with the U.S. Attorney's Office. On March 18, 2011, after the parties' settlement efforts failed, Plaintiffs filed a series of motions, which the Court now addresses in turn, along with Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene.
+
+x27;Jane Doe #2 joined this action after Jane Doe # I filed the initial Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act.
+
+# I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
+
+The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure them involvement in the criminal justice process. United States v. Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4ih Cir. 2007); Kenna v. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRAJ was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the following eight rights:
+
+- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
+- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
+- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
+- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
+- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
+- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
+- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
+- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
+
+18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
+
+If a prosecution is underway, the CVRA grants victims standing to vindicate their rights in the ongoing criminal action. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If, however, a prosecution is not underway, the victims may initiate a new action under the CVRA in the district court of the
+
+district where the crime occurred.' Id. The statute also tasks the district courts and the prosecutors with the responsibility of protecting these rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("[T]he court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); § 3771(c)(1) ("Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).").
+
+Here, Plaintiffs first argue that as a matter of law the CVRA's protections attach before a formal charge is filed against the criminal defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that the CVRA applied here and that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights; namely, their rights to confer, to be treated with fairness, and to accurate and timely notice of court proceedings. Based on these violations, Plaintiffs request that this Court set a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy, which according to Plaintiffs is to invalidate the nonprosecution agreement.
+
+The United States argues that as a matter of law the CVRA does not apply before formal charges are filed, i.e., before an indictment or similar charging document, and therefore does not apply here because formal charges were never filed against Epstein. The United States further argues that even if the CVRA applied here, the U.S. Attorney's Office complied with its requirements.
+
+The Court first addresses the threshold issue whether the CVRA attaches before the government brings formal charges against the defendant The Court holds that it does because the
+
+Here, because no criminal case was pending, Plaintiffs filed their petition as a new matter in this judicial district, which the Clerk of Court docketed as a civil action.
+
+statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge proceedings. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) provide rights that attach to "any public court proceeding ... involving the crime." Similarly, subsection (b) requires courts to ensure CVRA rights in "any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim." Court proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge. By way of example, under Rule 5(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon arrest the defendant must be taken before a magistrate judge "without unnecessary delay" for an initial appearance. If the arrest takes place on a weekday, "without unnecessary delay" will typically require that the initial appearance occur the following morning, which will often be within twenty-four hours of arrest. See United States v. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697, 702 (56 Cir. 1973) (holding that the government satisfied Rule 5's "without unnecessary delay" requirement by bringing the defendant before the magistrate judge on the first weekday morning following the arrest). By contrast, Rule 5(b) requires that where the defendant is arrested without a warrant, the government must file the complaint "promptly." The Supreme Court has interpreted "promptly" under Rule 5(b) as generally requiring that the complaint be filed within forty-eight hours of arrest. Cnty. Of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991). It is therefore possible that where the defendant is arrested on a weekday without a warrant, the initial appearance—which may also involve the detention or bond hearing under Rule 5(d)(3)—will take place before the government files the criminal complaint.
+
+Subsection (cX1) requires that "Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or
+
+prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights in subsection (a)." (Emphasis added). Subsection (c)(I)'s requirement that officials engaged in "detection [or] investigation" afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.
+
+Subsection (d)(3) explains that the CVRA's enumerated rights "shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." (Emphasis added). If the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime.
+
+This interpretation is consistent with other federal decisions that have addressed the scope of the CVRA. For instance, in In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5\* Cir. 2008), the court held that subsection (a)(5)'s "right to confer" applied before any prosecution is underway. Id. at 394. Specifically, the court explained:
+
+The district court acknowledged that "there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain.
+
+Id. at 394 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal district courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States v. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing victims' "ability to seek pre-prosecution relief' under the CVRA); United States v. Okun, No. 08-132, 2009 WL 790042, at '2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) ("[T]he Fifth
+
+Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt."); United States v. BP Prods N. Am. Inc., No. 07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at \*11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) ("There are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean 527 F.3d 391 (5ih Cir. 2008).
+
+The United States argues that because the CVRA accords rights related to "any court proceeding," 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(b)(1), (d)(3), and "in the case," § 3771(b)(5), the CVRA applies only after formal charges are filed. The Court finds this argument unavailing. First, as discussed above, "court proceedings" can occur before formal charges are filed. Similarly, subsection (a)(5)'s reference to the right to confer with "the attorney for the Government in the case," is not limited to post-charge proceedings, as the United States is represented by attorneys in each criminal case at, for example, initial appearances and bond hearings.' Last, the government's interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections, such as subsection (c)(1)'s mandate that U.S. agencies involved at the "detection" and "investigation" stage use their best efforts to accord victims their enumerated rights under the CVRA and subsection (d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA
+
+For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at \*2 (holding that a "victim's `right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy' may apply before any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a `court proceeding' or `case,'" but concluding that "the right 'to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case' ... arise[s] only after charges have been brought against a defendant and a case has been opened"). But see In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394 (holding that under subsection (a)(5), "the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges").
+
+rights even if "no prosecution is underway." See United States v. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11ih Cir. 1999) ("[W]e read the statute to give full effect to each of its provisions. We do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire statutory context.") (citation omitted).
+
+The Court also rejects the United States' argument that pre-charge CVRA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making. Any encroachment into the prosecutors' discretion is expressly limited by the CVRA itself, which provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). As the court explained in Rubin, "there is absolutely no suggestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime, set strategy, or object to or appeal pretrial or in limine orders .... In short, the CVRA, for the most part, gives victims a voice, not a veto." 558 F. Supp. at 418; see also BP Prods N. Am., 2008 WL 501321, at \*15 ("Even under an expansive approach, the reasonable right to confer on a proposed plea agreement and the government's obligation to provide notice of that right is subject to the limit that the CVRA not impair prosecutorial discretion."). Thus, to the extent that the victims' pre-charge CVRA rights impinge upon prosecutorial discretion, under the plain language of the statute those rights must yield.
+
+Having determined that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed, the Court must address whether the particular rights asserted here attached and, if so, whether the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights. However, the Court lacks a factual record to support such findings and must therefore defer ruling on these two issues pending the limited discovery discussed below.
+
+# II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
+
+For the reasons stated on the record at the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' request to have their facts accepted as true.
+
+### III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence
+
+Plaintiffs request an order from the Court "directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case." (DE 50 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek all information and material known to the government that may be favorable to the victims regarding possible violations of their rights under the CVRA. The United States opposes the motion, arguing that neither the CVRA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to Plaintiffs here.
+
+At the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the United States agreed that this Court, under its inherent authority to manage this case, could impose discovery obligations on each party. Because the Court finds that some factual development is necessary to resolve the remaining issues in this case, it will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Either party may request additional discovery if necessary.
+
+Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on Plaintiffs' motion.
+
+### IV. Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order
+
+Bruce E. Reinhart seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and improperly represented Epstein victims in follow-on civil suits. (DE 48 at 22). Plaintiffs contend that such conduct "give[s], at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry [favor] with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment." (DE 48 at 23). Reinhart takes great offense to these accusation—which he contends are false, irrelevant to the CVRA claims, and gratuitous—and seeks intervention to rebut these allegations and move for sanctions.
+
+Under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." It is "wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b) and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention." In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th 2006). The Court will deny Reinhart's request to intervene.
+
+First, the Court finds that Reinhart's claim does not share a common question of law or fact with the CVRA action. Reinhart claims that two paragraphs of Plaintiffs' forty-page motion make groundless and bad-faith accusations against his integrity and character. However, the veracity of Plaintiffs' two paragraphs—i.e., whether Reinhart used his position at the U.S. Attorney's Office to ingratiate himself with Epstein and advance his career in private practice—involves no common questions with the Plaintiffs' claims that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights through the process in which it entered into the NPA with Epstein. Indeed, Reinhart's motion argues that the allegations against him are "irrelevant" and that Plaintiffs "do[] not make any effort to connect these allegations to the relief [they] seek[]." (DE 79 at 2).
+
+Second, even if these accusations shared common questions with Plaintiffs' CVRA claims, the Court would exercise its discretion and deny intervention. The Court cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation. Absent some other concrete interest in these proceedings, the Court does not believe that the allegations here are sufficiently harmful to justify permissive intervention. Reinhart has publicly aired his opposition to and denial of Plaintiffs' contentions, both on this docket and in open court, and the Court finds that further proceedings on this issue are unwarranted. For the same reason, the Court declines to conduct a sua sponte Rule 11 inquiry.
+
+### Conclusion
+
+For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court concludes that the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed. The
+
+Court defers ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs' CVRA claims until the parties complete the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted (DE 49) is DENIED.
+
+The Court reserves ruling Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50) pending the discovery ordered herein.
+
+It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79) is DENIED.
+
+DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 26ih day of September, 2011.
+
+> rZ ge KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..975a0829bfa103ae9246d118a946c7cc18a87282
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205844/EFTA00205844.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,737 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205844.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 14,
+ "chars": 24997,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.84,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 85.05
+ ],
+ [
+ 405.5263977050781,
+ 114.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 206.856,
+ 114.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "ORDER",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 312.65999999999997
+ ],
+ [
+ 331.149169921875,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 281.52,
+ 326.8535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Background'",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 140.148,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 85.8170166015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.5708923339844,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 448.5708923339844,
+ 86.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 86.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to \nContest Any of the Facts",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 70.47
+ ],
+ [
+ 508.32330322265625,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant \nEvidence",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 170.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 170.1
+ ],
+ [
+ 522.1690673828125,
+ 199.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 199.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "IV. Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule \n11 Order",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 71.28
+ ],
+ [
+ 540.1083984375,
+ 100.353515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 100.353515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Conclusion",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 581.5799999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 131.8990478515625,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 68.544,
+ 596.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 55
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 29
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "Footnote",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 51
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 47
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 13,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageHeader",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205844"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c2604990db9c6cc411bba867f9477a09ae430b4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+
+
+To:
+
+
+
+**Subject:** Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe █ United States of America Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply
+
+**Date:** Mon, 19 Sep 2011 19:03:55 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+---
+
+**This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.**
+
+**\*\*\*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS\*\*\*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
+
+U.S. District Court
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+**Notice of Electronic Filing**
+
+The following transaction was entered on 9/19/2011 at 3:03 PM EDT and filed on 9/19/2011
+
+**Case Name:** Doe █ United States of America
+
+**Case Number:** [9:08-cv-80736-KAM](#)
+
+**Filer:**
+
+**Document Number:** [97](#)
+
+**Docket Text:**
+
+**ORDER granting [95] Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply to [93] MOTION to Intervene For Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 9/19/2011. (ir)**
+
+**9:08-cv-80736-KAM Notice has been electronically mailed to:**
+
+
+
+Bradley James Edwards
+
+Bruce Reinhart
+
+Dexter Lee dexter
+
+Jacqueline Perczek
+
+Jay C. Howell jay
+
+
+
+
+
+9:08-cv-80736-1CAM Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1-888-318-2260.:
+
+The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
+
+## Document description:Main Document
+
+Original filename:n/a
+
+## Electronic document Stamp:
+
+[STAMP dcecfStamp\_11 1105629215 [Date=9/19/2011] [FileNumber=9254595-0 ] [5ff2029e18ab06041278ddb07f1916572e31124747469603e40d0ac7ca7028aa852 eacb0cd4ee0296693ba8904652972112(113551df954c3997ba13666a83667]]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54032ca9d6180fe03fa95fb44a044e5f9b3dde4f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/EFTA00205858.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,176 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205858.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2295,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.2,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_129.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_131.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_156.jpeg",
+ "_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 182.37599999999998,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 182.37599999999998,
+ 336.15
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 336.15
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Document description:Main Document",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 232.35089111328125,
+ 118.25999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 232.35089111328125,
+ 132.84
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 132.84
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Electronic document Stamp:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 145.42889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 183.34019470214844,
+ 145.42889404296875
+ ],
+ [
+ 183.34019470214844,
+ 159.57000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 159.57000000000002
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205858"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_129.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_129.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..319afd05a04f627474d0c5edfb765b63aa419192
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_129.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:de83754d82f2f0756e8b0ab969d83184c1da1e88f54250128f44603313392284
+size 5521
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_131.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_131.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..030d2846041deb84d2bdd63b56c233ce97deecef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_131.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:2bcf7a079cf3f85cca0f3d2a267145cbb04a8d40b36f29a2415e1df92cf827e7
+size 3133
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a53441e92bfd47ffe86ee6d608113f75d7aff958
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_148.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f62731c83d22eece0b9a87574d62ce0e450e6e8ec1fcbac5ec7198d81e80856f
+size 3920
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_156.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_156.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..69071cbceede5fb0b4eac5ddb52f4a0dd489862b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_0_Picture_156.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:7e6b715a08a3b405021bd0b1c8128e29c322d17e59a76592d14a604c4bdc9613
+size 11332
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..547233ead1267a8c57e3bcf6dfbf3b78500dbf0a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205858/_page_1_Picture_1.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9a51dd590f07147769d7b3e4f3924da361d08788efa94b06a2b548ace5456ace
+size 2439
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfc8fb939eb37cdb108bfbc7562a5670d5978283
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.md
@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+From: (USAFLS)" alMIN>
+
+To: ala>
+
+Subject: Jane Does v. United States, 08-80736-CIV-Marra/Johnson
+
+Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 18:41:37 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: Proposed\_Order on\_Motn\_for\_Extension\_of Time.wpd
+
+<> Good afternoon -- Attached please find the proposed Order on the Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time.
+
+Thank you.
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+Fax
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1be0b562cc6738616147bcd4bf35cc971d236c60
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205860/EFTA00205860.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205860.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 426,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.72,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 28
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205860"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..112518ff725e4c8cbaa10e507f5c148f4e9970ac
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.md
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+To:
+
+Subject: Re: Jane Does v United States
+
+Date: Fri, 16 Sep 2011 14:36:23 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Thanks. I will call ou late this afternoon. I am in training until 2:00
+
+USA
+
+--- Original Message
+
+From: Brad Edwards
+
+Sen
+
+To:
+
+Subject: Re: Jane Does v United States
+
+Of course not. Talk to you soon.
+
+-----Ori inal Messa e
+
+From:
+
+To: Brad Edwards
+
+To:
+
+Subject: Jane Does v United States
+
+Sent: Sep 16, 2011 8:28 AM
+
+Dear Brad and Roy:
+
+I was in Bogota for 10 days where my phone didn't work and I had very limited access to email so I have a lot of catching up to do. Do you have any objection to a ten day extension of time to respond to Mr Epstein's motion?
+
+Thank ou
+
+USA
+
+Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..c55a532ce529b56cec64371e2caaf8109c16c5ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205861/EFTA00205861.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205861.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 712,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.07,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205861"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef76e49faa1fec075b565e44b03b31d564f47ffd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.md
@@ -0,0 +1,23 @@
+From: To: Cc:
+
+Subject: Rh.. hpstun
+
+Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2011 18:22:15 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Thanks Doug. I am also including with some of the legal issues we ace. Thanks. to the U.S. Attorney, on this e-mail given his familiarity
+
+From: Molloy, Douglas (USAFLM)
+
+Sent: Frida October 07 2011 2:20 PM
+
+C
+
+I am the AUSA from the MDFL assigned to the Epstein matter. In that regard ,-and I have arranged for a meeting in West Palm Beach for a full debriefing on all issues. I would like to include in that meeting, which we have set for October 27, 2011.
+
+Regards,
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+Fort Myers Division, MDFL
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9af380d5a4330a2f27847bb97c663a5a756920a7
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205862/EFTA00205862.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205862.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 616,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 0.73,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 37
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 19
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 15
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205862"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..be93f7c60e76762157cfeaab6e0b44d6c4a8fe31
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.md
@@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
+**To:** "[REDACTED]. (USAFLS)" <[REDACTED]>
+
+**Subject:** Re: Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+
+**Date:** Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:17:06 +0000
+
+**Importance**
+: Normal
+
+---
+
+Thanks, and no problem. I was in Bogota too for 8 days visiting my family last week.
+
+>>>
+
+**From:** "[REDACTED]. (USAFLS)" <[REDACTED]>
+**To:** "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
+**CC:** "[REDACTED] (USAFLS)" <[REDACTED]>
+**Date:** 9/29/2011 11:15 AM
+**Subject:** Re: Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+
+Dear Jackie,
+
+Of course. Thank you for being so accommodating with my previous requests.
+
+[REDACTED], AUSA
+
+---
+
+**From:** Jackie Perczek [mailto:[REDACTED]]
+**Sent:** Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:08 AM
+**To:** [REDACTED]. (USAFLS)
+**Subject:** Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+
+Hi [REDACTED],
+
+I would like to ask Judge Marra until October 14 to file replies re: Epstein's motion to intervene. I ran this by Paul Cassell who has no objection. Can I file the motion as unopposed and tell the Judge that the govt does not object either?
+
+Thanks,
+
+Jackie
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+[REDACTED]
+
+[www.royblack.com](http://www.royblack.com)
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..321c863513f9248b9b8cb9cbfa2239e6a9ae0664
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205863/EFTA00205863.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,54 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205863.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1536,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.79,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 76
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 49
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 35
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205863"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..668379da70968b27a5c136c8586de845d43534b0
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.md
@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+**To:** "[REDACTED], [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. (USAFLS)" <[REDACTED]>
+
+**Subject:** Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+
+**Date:** Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:08:15 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Inline-
+Images:** ATT00001
+
+Hi [REDACTED],
+
+I would like to ask Judge Marra until October 14 to file replies re: Epstein's motion to intervene. I ran this by Paul Cassell who has no objection. Can I file the motion as unopposed and tell the Judge that the govt does not object either?
+
+Thanks,
+
+Jackie
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+
+
+201 South Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 1300
+
+Miami, Florida 33131
+
+O: [REDACTED]
+
+Fax: [REDACTED]
+
+[www.royblack.com](http://www.royblack.com)
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..55bb7c6d39559f55bacd93f451e39a4e55475075
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/EFTA00205864.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205864.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1112,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.34,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 62
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 39
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205864"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..6a88eae2eecd1bb1c1764b0d763b6e80d3caa338
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205864/_page_0_Picture_126.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:80a459602765e2862197c884587cbc07931ee38d0dd742c6d30b248abd719ff8
+size 5382
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9662c1a39c5d9fd1c0df0ecf117e671321547235
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+
+
+**Subject:** Re: Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+**Date:** Thu, 29 Sep 2011 15:14:40 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Inline-
+Images:** ATT00001
+
+Of course. Thank you for being so accommodating with my previous requests.
+
+
+
+---
+
+**From:** Jackie Perczek [mailto:JPerczek@royblack.com]
+
+**Sent:** Thursday, September 29, 2011 11:08 AM
+
+
+
+**Subject:** Epstein/Doe [REDACTED]. USAO
+
+Hi Marie,
+
+I would like to ask Judge Marra until October 14 to file replies re: Epstein's motion to intervene. I ran this by Paul Cassell who has no objection. Can I file the motion as unopposed and tell the Judge that the govt does not object either?
+
+Thanks,
+
+Jackie
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83f613d278108941fbfc56e4b0810fb56101895f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/EFTA00205865.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,63 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205865.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1211,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.85,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_86.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_94.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_101.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 27
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205865"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_101.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_101.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..4f4e5e3976651aa9a682781f3c24fb73e1bbc11f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_101.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:8ab4017292d8b4362b7b2fca02c1ae2cdb6300bc11b91c37dc4996777b528c94
+size 6239
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_86.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_86.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..677d47c5abd9788c06257130385eb023eb30cf8c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_86.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f4cd85e5f8578fafdc7019c7c8ec9dd496717054f2d777c17306992fcd984d05
+size 7152
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..3083c4ae11a5951999e61d5988bccfc8245541ef
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_91.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:6938b80b1c20ae12705e7960e515c2e01c561322bccf411cd55c97065720c37d
+size 1372
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_94.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_94.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1077f69b18c6534592d78a90b79b1237a0d0b4cd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205865/_page_0_Picture_94.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:cb810c786a3e93cc96f2245f257c7237dd7a08331ade5a6a21ecc62c60e0937a
+size 1058
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..54d1d5e40ba3d6aec84e7280280ab35dc91e5517
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.md
@@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
+To:
+
+Subject: FW: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. US
+
+Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2011 19:42:49 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Attachments: Plaintiffs\_lst\_RFP\_to\_US\_ATTY.pdf
+
+Inline-Images: image001 jpg
+
+Hi everyone — I am forwarding to you the Jane Does first Requests for Production of Documents, which just arrived. This will give us some context for our discussion on Wednesday.
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400
+
+West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Fax
+
+From: Maria Kelljchian [mailto:maria@pathtojustice.com]
+
+Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 2:06 PM
+
+To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS); Lee, Dexter (USAFLS);126lack@royblack.com'
+
+Cc: 'Paul Cassell'; brad@pathtojustice.com
+
+Subject: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. US
+
+Attached please find:
+
+JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
+
+Copy has also been sent via US Mail today.
+
+Maria W. Kelljchian
+
+Florida Registered Paralegal
+
+Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
+
+Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+fax maria@pathtojustice.com
+
+
+
+f Become our fan on Facebook
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..d6fb7f1156ba1b1e73ddcb93c3333bf7fe3e9acf
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/EFTA00205866.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205866.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1200,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.29,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_29.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 68
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205866"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/_page_0_Picture_29.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/_page_0_Picture_29.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5d57aced9396015f848058ad9182d650416b9476
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205866/_page_0_Picture_29.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:793bedd89a4d71fe1f78502ddfb33283b4f3e6b3055a293840849e7355f3ee6b
+size 1618
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..967be7c2329834e719c648c20d71da3e61fc355f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.md
@@ -0,0 +1,229 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-80736-Civ
+
+JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
+
+Plaintiffs
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendants
+
+### JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
+
+COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49).
+
+On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant evidence (DE 99 at 11).
+
+On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information relevant to their pending summary judgment motion.
+
+# DISCOVERY REOUESTED
+
+The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests.
+
+I. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the victims' summary judgment motion, the Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office's "investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on 'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an allegation that needed "further factual development." DE 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims' allegations, including:
+
+- (a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case;
+- (b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or exchange of information concerning the case;
+- (c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against children by Jeffrey Epstein;
+- (d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros memo") outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal
+
+offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor or predecessor document; and
+
+- (e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these prosecution memoranda and the draft federal indictments.
+
+2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but not limited to):
+
+- a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offenses;
+- b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
+- c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
+- d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement;
+- e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; 0 All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court) or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting with the Government.
+
+3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom.
+
+4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach).
+
+5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement.
+
+6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or victim objections.
+
+7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the nonprosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims.
+
+8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal (including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy Black on his behalf.
+
+9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications being made to the victims.
+
+10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these allegations, including:
+
+- a) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein;
+- b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and
+- c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated the rights of Epstein's victims in this case.
+
+11. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents). Related to these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June 2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim's Law Institute (NCVLI) concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI.
+
+12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent.
+
+13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27, 2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding:
+
+- a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered;
+- b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and
+- c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty, including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of crimes Epstein had committed against them.
+
+14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information about the Government's and Epstein's efforts to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and correspondence about "declining comment" or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret.
+
+15. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times, it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a "corrected" notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information about these notifications, including:
+
+- a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include some mention of the non-prosecution agreement;
+- b) any information about the contents of these notifications;
+- c) any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft;
+- d) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel about which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether Part 3 was operative);
+- e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and 0 any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement.
+
+16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement
+
+reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including:
+
+- a) Attorney involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein.
+- b) Attorney involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's interest in an witness, subject, or tar et of the E stein investigation, inch, Ghislaine Maxwell, Lesley Groff, , Louella Ruboyo, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh;
+- c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (includin telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, and any other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation;
+- d) All documents, correspondence, and other information including, for example, emails) that were sent to, copied to, or sent by in which the word "Epstein," ' "Ruboyo," "Morrison," "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond," Roxburgh," " "Florida Science Foundation," "Starr," "Black," "Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian," "Lewis," "Sanchez," "358 El Brillo Way" appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecution;
+- e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example emails) of a similar nature that indicate that my other Government prosecutor has represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein;
+- f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that tqy Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) has had any form of business, social, personal, or other relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; and
+- g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that pfly Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity).
+
+17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide:
+
+- a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter;
+- b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investigation;
+- c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207)
+- d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR's inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution;
+- e) Any documents corres ondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that he "did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he "was not involved in any of the Office's decisionmaking with regard to the Epstein matter;" and that he "never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter;"
+- f) Any documents, correspondence, or other information regarding the circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on the Epstein case;
+- g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of or following up on the victims' December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein case; and
+- h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution.
+
+18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, of handling various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that
+
+were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be investigated.
+
+19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors but merely pointed out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the Epstein investigation. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information that supports or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his letter, including any information that the Justice Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or contradicted such allegations.
+
+20. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein's guilty plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information between the Government and state and local prosecutors and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department and Palm Beach State Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein investigation and ultimate Epstein plea.
+
+21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence in the possession of the Government will support their claims. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information between Government attorneys/officials (including both federal and state prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on Epstein's behalf) relating to (I) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty pleas for related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the Government that barred his prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and/or the Government's obligations under the nonprosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other conditional release of Epstein from confinement; (6) any designation of Epstein as a sex offender or restrictions on him contacting victims of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2); and (7) any termination of supervision or parole of Epstein. This information should include unredacted e-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors workin on the case includin but not limited to federal •rosecutors Alexander Acosta Jeffre
+
+and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward
+
+(a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York). This should also include letters of recommendation or similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support for Jeffrey Epstein.
+
+22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein generous concessions through the plea negotiations. Please provide any documents, correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing:
+
+- (a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services, or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity;
+- (b) Any offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment, business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties;
+- (c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense;
+- (d) Any consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law enforcement agencies in the past; and
+- (e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect.
+
+23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), requires the Government to use its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this case because no indictment was filed.
+
+24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, and information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including emails) with those entities or persons.
+
+25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time, the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).
+
+# DEFINITIONS
+
+For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are defined:
+
+The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind.
+
+The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications.
+
+The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex offenses.
+
+The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims' claims.
+
+The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request.
+
+The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or Florida.
+
+### NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT
+
+If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation.
+
+# PRIVILEGE LOG
+
+If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and addressee of the document or correspondence.
+
+## REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN
+
+If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce any such burden.
+
+DATED: October 3, 2011
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone Facsimile Florida Bar No.: E-mail:
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell
+
+Pro Hac Vice
+
+S.J. Quinney College of Law at the
+
+Universit of Utah
+
+Salt Lake Cit 84112
+
+Telephone:
+
+Facsimile:
+
+E-Mail:
+
+Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
+
+# CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and E-Mail Transmission:
+
+Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+Fax:
+
+E-mail:
+
+E-mail:
+
+Attorneys for the Government
+
+Roy Black, Esq.
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+Black Srebnick Koms an & Stumpf, P.A.
+
+Miami, FL 33131
+
+Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al.
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+S/ Bradley J. Edwards
+
+Bradley J. Edwards
+
+FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING,
+
+EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8fbf6505b69fc99acba36642733e2071e565ba42
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205867/EFTA00205867.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,698 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205867.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 13,
+ "chars": 36984,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 2.28,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 412.1432800292969,
+ 99.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 99.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION \nTO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR \nPENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 83.844,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.992,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.992,
+ 334.35357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 83.844,
+ 334.35357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.876,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 457.65
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 472.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.876,
+ 472.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DISCOVERY REOUESTED",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.85394287109375,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.85394287109375,
+ 293.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 293.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFINITIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.04656982421875,
+ 140.13
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.04656982421875,
+ 155.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 155.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.1942138671875,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.1942138671875,
+ 224.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 224.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRIVILEGE LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.4736328125,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.4736328125,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 220.32,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9903259277344,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9903259277344,
+ 431.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 220.32,
+ 431.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.4544677734375,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.4544677734375,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 84
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 84
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 79
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 67
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205867"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a9be69c5b18eda8777a43b84d55c9906e4ec5b9e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** Re: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
+
+**Date:** Mon, 03 Oct 2011 16:02:25 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+---
+
+Nope. [REDACTED] is the [REDACTED] in MDFL. I'll reach out to him in the next day or so.
+
+---
+
+**From:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Sent:** Monday, October 03, 2011 12:00 PM
+
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** FW: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
+
+Hi [REDACTED] – Did you ever get the name of a line AUSA? I just let a message on [REDACTED] secretary's voicemail, but wondered whether you had heard anything.
+
+[REDACTED]
+Assistant U.S. Attorney
+
+---
+
+**From:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Sent:** Wednesday, August 24, 2011 7:28 PM
+
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** FW: FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
+
+FYI.
+
+---
+
+**From:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Sent:** Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:32 PM
+
+**To:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Cc:** [REDACTED]
+
+**Subject:** FORMAL NOTICE of Office-wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
+
+**MEMORANDUM FOR:**
+
+Wifredo A. Ferrer
+
+First Assistant United States Attorney
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+Robert E. O'Neill
+
+United States Attorney
+
+Middle District of Florida
+
+First Assistance United States Attorney
+
+Middle District of Florida
+
+## THROUGH:
+
+General Counsel
+
+Executive Office for United States Attorneys
+
+## FROM:
+
+Assistant General Counsel
+
+Executive Office for United States Attorneys
+
+RE: Office-Wide Recusal of Southern District of Florida from the Investigation
+
+and Potential Prosecution of Mr. Jeffery Epstein (GCO File No. REC-11-4159)
+
+THIS IS FORMAL NOTICE that David Margolis, Associate Deputy Attorney General (ADAG), approved the office-wide recusal of the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (SDFL) from all matters, to include the investigation and potential prosecution, relating to Jeffrey Epstein's alleged sexual activities with minor females. The ADAG authorized this recusal in accordance with United States Attorney's Manual (USAM) 3-2.170 and United States Attorney's Procedures (OM) 3-2.170.001 based upon existing conflicts of interest or the appearance of conflicts of interest pertaining to the matter.
+
+ADAG Margolis has assigned this matter to the United States Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.' 515(4 has directed and authorized United States Attorney Robert E. O'Neill to conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal, including grand jury proceedings and proceedings before committing magistrate judges, which the United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida is authorized by law to conduct regarding this matter. See USAP 3-2.170.001(6)(C).(2)(b).
+
+Each office should communicate directly with each other concerning the investigations related to this matter in accordance with the procedures outlined in AP 1-2 1 70.001(6mon)(3i. The oint of contact for the Middle District of Florida is Criminal Chief who can be contacted a The point of contact for the Southern District of Florida is First Assistant United States Attorney who can be reached at
+
+All Assistant United States Attorneys subsequently assigned to this matter must be appointed as Special Attorneys in order to appear on behalf of the government in the Southern District of Florida. See USAM 3- 2.300 and USAP 3-2.170.001(1C)(21(b). 6 Please contact Nicole West, EOUSA Personnel Staff, Policy and Special Programs Division, a o obtain the appointments.
+
+In accordance with USAP 3-2.170.001(6)1CX2n)(3), any Special Attorney assigned the matter or case should sign any pleadings or documents using the signature block of the Middle District of Florida, with the addition of the Attorney General's name preceding that of the United States Attorney.
+
+lila; any questions relating to this recusal matter, please contact Assistant General Counsel eneral Counsel's Office, EOUSA, at Thank you.
+
+Thank you,
+
+Assistant General Counsel
+
+General Counsel's Office
+
+Executive Office for United States Attorneys
+
+
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..dfba3baacef9546645f40e7fd9d341b647543613
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/EFTA00205880.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,198 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205880.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 3,
+ "chars": 4188,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 5.67,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "MEMORANDUM FOR:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 668.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 161.568,
+ 668.25
+ ],
+ [
+ 161.568,
+ 681.21
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 681.21
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "THROUGH:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 280.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 103.70439147949219,
+ 280.26
+ ],
+ [
+ 103.70439147949219,
+ 296.4735412597656
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 296.4735412597656
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "FROM:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 356.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.87467956542969,
+ 356.4
+ ],
+ [
+ 77.87467956542969,
+ 372.6035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 372.6035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 48
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 24
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 79
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 32
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 16
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 14
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205880"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2861ebef644377bfb675a49f665564c6000dcb3c
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205880/_page_2_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:fc359151e3241ba4fcd140cd1c2d4a2d76b1c204f009445db9bed25969f57107
+size 6904
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2da1f6c9d701139b512f1c0f502caa7907b19951
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.md
@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+[REDACTED]
+
+**Cc:** 'Paul Cassell' <[REDACTED]>
+
+<[REDACTED]>
+
+**Subject:** Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. US
+
+**Date:** Mon, 03 Oct 2011 18:05:49 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Attachments:** Plaintiffs\_1st\_RFP\_to\_US\_ATTY.pdf
+
+**Inline-Images:** image001.jpg
+
+---
+
+Attached please find:
+
+JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
+
+Copy has also been sent via US Mail today.
+
+**Maria W. Kelljchian**
+
+Florida Registered Paralegal
+
+**Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,**
+
+**Edwards, Fistos & Lehrman, P.L.**
+
+425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
+
+Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+
+
+
+
+**Become our fan on Facebook**
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1547a6b074193a52050ab616173f452dbae1e42a
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/EFTA00205883.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,61 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205883.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 816,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 4.44,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 41
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205883"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..f26309042f29fdce029ea171f0d8c1c654a0598f
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:7eef713772d381fd7cf23966ffaa5639cd114bf25d9f70e01c6dc6d486235b23
+size 2872
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..bd621376bffda578a0e22ab131363e891f3f0d40
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205883/_page_0_Picture_96.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:867f80a1e35debe23f794032f8f9f890296c343bf6381c7e9c3c31a2d2aeae88
+size 1544
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2066b1f97dc93a18634a07241fa6429226130f08
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.md
@@ -0,0 +1,205 @@
+#### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson
+
+JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2,
+
+Plaintiffs
+
+v.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendants
+
+### JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR PENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT
+
+COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ("the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, and request the defendant United States (hereinafter "the Government") to produce the original or best copy of the items listed herein below for inspection and/or copying, pursuant to the Court's Order (DE #99) directing discovery in this case.
+
+## BACKGROUND
+
+As the Government will recall, the victims have asked the Government to stipulate to undisputed facts in this case. The Government has declined. Accordingly, the victims filed their Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and Request for a Hearing on Appropriate Remedies (DE 48) (the victims' "summary judgment motion") along with a Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49).
+
+On September 26, 2011, the Court denied the victims' motion to have their facts accepted (DE 99 at 11). At the same time, however, the Court has ordered discovery to develop the factual record concerning the summary judgment motion (DE 99 at 11). The Court reserved ruling on the victims' motion for an order directing the Government not to suppress relevant evidence (DE 99 at 11).
+
+On September 28, 2011, the victims requested that the Government voluntarily provide documents concerning this case. The Government declined to provide even a single document. Accordingly, the victims now seek the following information relevant to their pending summary judgment motion.
+
+## DISCOVERY REOUESTED
+
+The numbered discovery requests below should all be construed in light of the definitions of terms provided at the end of the requests.
+
+I. In the victims' currently-pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that the Government conducted an extensive criminal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein's sexual exploitation of young girls, including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 between 2001 and 2008. The victims also contend that the FBI and other federal agencies established that Epstein operated a large criminal enterprise that used paid employees and underlings to repeatedly find and bring minor girls to him. In deferring ruling on the victims' summary judgment motion, the Court noted that the victims had alleged that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office's "investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on 'overwhelming' evidence." DE 99 at 2. The Court, however, also noted that this was an allegation that needed "further factual development." DE 99 at 2 n.2. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that supports these victims' allegations, including:
+
+- (a) the FBI case file on the Epstein case;
+- (b) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, FBI 302s, and other similar information, that the Government collected as part of its case against and/or investigation of Epstein, including any information provided to Epstein or receive from Epstein as part of "discovery" or exchange of information concerning the case;
+- (c) all documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other similar information that the Government received from any federal, state, local, or other law enforcement agency regarding sex offenses committed against children by Jeffrey Epstein;
+- (d) the 82-page prosecution memorandum (a/k/a "pros memo") outlining numerous federal sexual offenses committed by Epstein (and any attachments to that memorandum) and the 53-page draft indictment for numerous federal
+
+offenses that the Government developed in this case and any similar successor or predecessor document; and
+
+- (e) Any other prosecution memorandum regarding Jeffrey Epstein (and any documents attached to that memorandum) and all draft federal indictments that were prepared regarding Epstein. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these prosecution memoranda and the draft federal indictments.
+
+2. Throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims contend that they received only limited notifications from the Government (and, in particular, the U.S. Attorney's Office acting through FBI agents) about the plea negotiations that occurred with Jeffrey Epstein and the non-prosecution agreement that was ultimately reached. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information regarding victim notifications in this case, including (but not limited to):
+
+- a) All crime victims notifications (and draft notifications) sent to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 and the other identified victims of Epstein's offenses;
+- b) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding negotiations between the Government and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
+- c) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding discussions between the Government, the FBI, the Palm Beach Police Department, the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office, and Epstein's defense attorneys concerning the extent and nature of notifications to be made to Epstein's victims;
+- d) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding "marching orders" that were given to FBI agents regarding the information that they could provide to the victims about the negotiations and the non-prosecution agreement;
+- e) All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding information that could be given to attorneys for the victims about the non-prosecution agreement, including information about what could be told to Brad Edwards (counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) about the non-prosecution agreement; 0 All correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's awareness that his victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) would not be notified of the non-prosecution agreement (and its ultimate presentation in court) or given a chance to confer regarding the plea negotiations he was conducting with the Government.
+
+3. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government negotiated a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein and that among the subjects covered in that non-prosecution agreement was a confidentiality provision that precluded disclosing the agreement to them and to other victims. Please provide all draft plea agreements (both state and federal) and non-prosecution agreements prepared either by attorneys for the Government or by attorneys for Epstein, as well as any correspondence, documents or other information pertaining to these agreements and to any confidentiality provision in these agreements. Please indicate that date on which each of these proposed agreements was drafted and by whom.
+
+4. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was interested in finding a place to conclude any plea agreement that would effectively keep Epstein's victims (most of whom resided in or about West Palm Beach) from learning what was happening through the press. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein concerning the court and/or location in which Jeffrey Epstein would enter any guilty plea (including in particular any negotiations concerning concluding the plea in Miami or other location outside of West Palm Beach).
+
+5. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that part of the plea negotiations with Epstein involved Epstein's efforts to make sure that the victims would be represented in civil cases against Epstein by someone who was not an experienced personal injury lawyer. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information pertaining to negotiations between the Government and Jeffrey Epstein regarding any legal representation of the victims in civil cases against Epstein, including any negotiations about what kinds of representation should be provided in a plea agreement or non-prosecution agreement.
+
+6. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment that the Government wanted the non-prosecution agreement with Epstein concealed from public view because of the intense public criticism that would have resulted had the agreement been disclosed and/or the possibility that victims would have objected in court and convicted the judge not to accept the agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information concerning the Government's and/or Epstein awareness or discussion of this possible public criticism and/or victim objections.
+
+7. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that the Government was aware that it potentially had obligations under the CVRA to notify the victims about the nonprosecution agreement and any related state court plea agreement. Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding the Government's awareness of its potential CVRA obligations in this case and regarding any discussions between the Government and Epstein concerning these CVRA obligations in this case. This should include any objections raised by Epstein to any notification of the victims (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) and any Government response to these objections. This should also include any correspondence and information about whether the CVRA applied to the victims.
+
+8. The victims allege in their pending summary judgment motion that, after Epstein signed the non-prosecution agreement, his performance was delayed while he used his significant social and political connections to lobby the Justice Department to obtain a more favorable plea deal (including lobbying components of the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., including the Child Exploitation Obscenity Section). Please provide all correspondence, documents, and other information regarding Epstein's lobbying efforts to persuade the Government to give him a more favorable plea arrangement and/or non-prosecution agreement, including efforts by former President Bill Clinton, Andrew Albert Christian Edward (a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York), Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, Jay Lefkowitz, and Roy Black on his behalf.
+
+9. On January 10, 2008, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 received letters from the FBI advising them that "this case is currently under investigation." Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to those representations being made by the FBI to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, including all information about whether the FBI was aware of the non-prosecution agreement at that time and about whether Epstein was aware of the notifications being made to the victims.
+
+10. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the FBI was led to believe that their investigation of Epstein was going to produce a federal criminal prosecution and that the FBI was also misled by the U.S. Attorney's office about the status of the case. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information relating to these allegations, including:
+
+- a) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to discussions between the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI concerning the status of the investigation and the plea discussions with Epstein, as well as what kind of charges would appropriately be filed against Epstein;
+- b) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to the U.S. Attorney's Office's representations to the FBI and any other state or local law enforcement agency about how this case was being handled; and
+- c) All documents, correspondence, and other information relating to whether the FBI would support the position of the U.S. Attorney's Office that it has not violated the rights of Epstein's victims in this case.
+
+11. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they had various meetings with Government prosecutors and/or agents (including FBI agents). Related to these meetings, they also allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of a previously-signed non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these meetings with the victims and their legal counsel, including meetings with the victims on October 26, 2007, and January 31, 2008, and the contact with their legal counsel in mid-June 2008. Please also provide all documents, correspondence, and other information related to contacts between the Government and the National Crime Victim's Law Institute (NCVLI) concerning possible legal representation or other assistance to the victims by NCVLI.
+
+12. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that in mid-June 2008, their attorney (Bradley J. Edwards) discussed with an AUSA involved in the case the need for filing federal charges and that the AUSA asked the attorney to send a letter about why such charges should be filed without disclosing the existence of the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 3, 2008, their attorney sent a letter urging the filing of federal charges against Epstein. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding these contacts, including e-mails and correspondence generated as a result of the attorney's inquiry and any action that was taken in response to the letter that he sent.
+
+13. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that on or about June 27, 2008, the Government learned that Epstein would be entering his plea to state charges on about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information regarding:
+
+- a) How the Government Office learned that the plea was going to be entered;
+- b) How the Government notified victims about the entry of the guilty plea; and
+- c) The contents of the notifications given to the victims about the entry of the guilty, including whether the victims were informed about the non-prosecution agreement and about whether the entry of this plea would preclude prosecution of crimes Epstein had committed against them.
+
+14. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that the Government and Epstein worked together to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including declining comment about the existence of such an agreement when asked about it when his guilty plea in state court became public knowledge. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and information about the Government's and Epstein's efforts to keep the existence of the non-prosecution agreement secret, including all e-mails and correspondence about "declining comment" or similar devices to keep the non-prosecution agreement secret.
+
+15. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that at all materials times, it would have been practical and feasible for the Government to have kept the victims informed about the discussions concerning the non-prosecution agreement. The victims further allege that on about July 9, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office provided notice to Jane Doe #1 of some of the terms of the agreement between it and Jeffrey Epstein. The victims also received a "corrected" notification letter on about September 3, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information about these notifications, including:
+
+- a) any information about whether these notifications should or should not include some mention of the non-prosecution agreement;
+- b) any information about the contents of these notifications;
+- c) any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding what the notifications should contain, including any communication on or about July 9, 2008, objecting to parts of the draft;
+- d) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel about which parts of the non-prosecution agreement were operative (including whether Part 3 was operative);
+- e) Any communications between the Government and Epstein's counsel regarding the September 3, 2008, corrected notification letter; and 0 any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the practicality and feasibility of providing notice to the victims of the existence of the agreement, which shall include any correspondence related to meeting with the victims or notifying them in any way of the non-prosecution agreement.
+
+16. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims allege that one of the senior prosecutors in the U.S. Attorney's Office joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability — and improperly represented people close to Epstein. In light of this fact, the peculiar nature of the non-prosecution agreement
+
+reached in this case, and other information in the possession of the victims, it is also possible that other improper relationships exist between Government agents and Epstein. Please provide any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the possibility of any improper relationship, including:
+
+- a) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of any aspect of the Government's criminal investigation and/or possible prosecution/non-prosecution of Epstein;
+- b) Attorney Bruce Reinhart's involvement in and/or awareness of the Government's interest in any witness, subject, or target of the Epstein investigation, includin j Maxwell, Larry Morrison, Larry Visoki, David Rogers, William Hammond, and Robert Roxburgh;
+- c) All documents, correspondence, and other information reflecting telephone calls (including telephone logs and telephone billing statements) made by or received by Reinhart from Jeffrey Epstein, the Florida Science Foundation, Jack Goldberger, Alan Dersowitz, Roy Black, Ken Starr, Lillian Sanchez, and any other person involved with the criminal defense of Jeffrey Epstein, including telephone calls to and from Jack Goldberger and the Florida Science Foundation;
+- d) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including, for example, emails) that were sent to, co ied to, or sent by Reinhart in which the word "Epstein," " "Morrison," "Visoki," "Rogers," "Hammond," Roxburgh," " "Florida Science Foundation," "Starr," "Black," "Goldberger," "Jeffrey," "Australian," "Lewis," "Sanchez," "358 El Brillo Way" appears and which are connected to or related to Jeffrey Epstein, Jack Goldberger, or the Jeffrey Epstein investigation or prosecution;
+- e) All documents, correspondence, and other information (including for example emails) of a similar nature that indicate that my other Government prosecutor has represented (or discussed representing) a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein or has received business or funds from a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein;
+- f) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that tqy Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) has had any form of business, social, personal, or other relationship with Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein; and
+- g) All documents, correspondence, and other information that indicate or suggest that pfly Government prosecutor or investigator (including state and local prosecutor or investigator) would receive anything of value, directly or indirectly from Jeffrey Epstein or a person or entity related to Jeffrey Epstein (including any charitable contributions to be made by Epstein to any entity).
+
+17. In December 2010, the victims sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, requesting that the Office investigate whether "improper influences" were brought to bear during the negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) of Jeffrey Epstein. That letter led to a reference of the matter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) in the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., which began some kind of an inquiry/investigation. Please provide:
+
+- a) All documents, correspondence, and other information collected by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) and any other component of the Justice Department (including the FBI) in response to the victims' letter;
+- b) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected as part of OPR's inquiry/investigation;
+- c) All documents, correspondence, witness statements and other information collected as part of any criminal inquiry/investigation that was initiated as a result of that letter, including any inquiry/investigation into criminal conflict of interest violations (such as 18 U.S.C. § 205 and § 207)
+- d) All documents, correspondence, witness statements, and other information collected by any federal investigative agency that was triggered by OPR's inquiry/investigation, including any FBI inquiry/investigation regarding any improper influences or criminal or ethical violations that may have been committed by government attorneys during the handling of the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution;
+- e) Any documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the accuracy or inaccuracy of Bruce Reinhart's sworn statements (found in DE 79-1 at p. 31) that he "did not participate in any way in the Office's investigation of Epstein;" that he "was not involved in any of the Office's decisionmaking with regard to the Epstein matter;" and that he "never learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter;"
+- f) Any documents, correspondence, or other information regarding the circumstances that lead OPR to send a letter to the victims on May 6, 2011, indicating that they would not provide any further assistance to the victims in connection with their allegations that improper influences were brought to bear on the Epstein case;
+- g) Any document, correspondence, e-mail, memoranda, or other information prepared by OPR, the FBI, or other Justice Department Component as a result of or following up on the victims' December 2010 letter concerning the Epstein case; and
+- h) Any documents, correspondence, or other information that OPR has collected or obtained regarding the Epstein investigation and/or prosecution.
+
+18. At a couple points during the prosecution of this action, including in approximately December 2010 and most recently after the August 2011 hearing, the Justice Department in Washington, D.C., discussed or determined that the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO SDFL) was "conflicted out", or may be conflicted out, of handling various issues related to the Epstein case because it suffered from a conflict of interest. The Justice Department accordingly sent various issues related to the Epstein case (and, on information and belief, issues related to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2) to the Department of Justice and to a United States Attorney's Office in another District. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information regarding the potential conflicts of interest that the Justice Department discussed or determined existed for the USAO SDFL, as well as any referral that was made to Main Justice or to any other District, including any documents that
+
+were transmitted to any other District regarding the conflict and regarding what was to be investigated.
+
+19. In March 2011, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta sent a three-page letter to the news media in which he claimed that when Government attorneys began investigating Epstein, Epstein launched "a yearlong assault on the prosecution and the prosecutors." Shortly thereafter, Jeffrey Epstein's defense attorney Roy Black sent a responsive letter to Alexander Acost's letter to the news media in which he claimed that he did not pry into the personal lives of prosecutors but merely pointed out misconduct and over-reaching by certain people involved in the Epstein investigation. Please provide all documents, correspondence and other information that supports or contradicts Acosta's allegations in his letter, including any information that the Justice Department received from Epstein attacking the prosecutors and investigators working on the case. Please also provides all documents, correspondence, information about misconduct and over-reaching that was provided by Black and that the Government found that supported or contradicted such allegations.
+
+20. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that Epstein's guilty plea to state charges was intended to be the consummation of a non-prosecution agreement that barred prosecution of federal offenses committed against them. They have further alleged that Epstein entered such a guilty plea on or about June 30, 2008. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information between the Government and state and local prosecutors and police agencies (including The Palm Beach Police Department and Palm Beach State Attorney's Office) regarding the Epstein investigation and ultimate Epstein plea.
+
+21. In their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that correspondence in the possession of the Government will support their claims. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information between Government attorneys/officials (including both federal and state prosecutors) and attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein (or non-attorney acting on Epstein's behalf) relating to (I) negotiations involving the possible prosecution (and ultimately the non-prosecution) by federal or state agencies for sex offenses, including sex offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, (2) Epstein's entry of state guilty pleas for related sex offenses; (3) a non-prosecution agreement entered into between Epstein and the Government that barred his prosecution for offenses committed against Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2; (4) the fulfillment of Epstein's and/or the Government's obligations under the nonprosecution agreement and/or the state guilty pleas Epstein entered; (5) any work release or other conditional release of Epstein from confinement; (6) any designation of Epstein as a sex offender or restrictions on him contacting victims of his offenses (including Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2); and (7) any termination of supervision or parole of Epstein. This information should include unredacted e-mails, letters, and correspondence of any type between government prosecutors working on the case (including, but not limited to, federal prosecutors Alexander Acosta, MI
+
+Inennn IEAn11 ..... Anl Pt all,. I inn inn A An RA ^Inn If, linfe.. 1 twin/. I nn nn,1 4ln inn VAR nig n•-I and state prosecutors Dahlia Weiss, Lana Belolovek, and others involved in the Epstein investigation) and defense attorneys representing Epstein (including, but not limited to, Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly Ann Sanchez, Ken Starr, Alan Dershowitz) and agents acting in support of Epstein (including, but not limited to former President Bill Clinton and Andrew Albert Christian Edward
+
+(a/k/a Prince Andrew, Duke of York). This should also include letters of recommendation or similar communications submitted to any Government official vouching for or providing support for Jeffrey Epstein.
+
+22. As you know, throughout their pending summary judgment motion, the victims have alleged that they were not properly notified of plea negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein and were denied their right to confer by the Government and that instead the Government gave Epstein generous concessions through the plea negotiations. Please provide any documents, correspondence and other information that reflects or discusses any consideration of any type that Epstein had previously provided or offered to provide to the Government (or any individual within the Government, in either his official or private capacity) or any person previously employed by the Government and involved in the Epstein investigation or prosecution. The documents, correspondence, and other information should include any information discussing:
+
+- (a) Any donation or offer to donate, directly or indirectly, either funds, services, or any other valuable consideration to any person or entity;
+- (b) Any offer to assist, directly or indirectly, any person to obtain employment, business opportunities, business clients, real estate, office properties;
+- (c) Any offer to assist the Government or law enforcement agencies in the investigation or prosecution of any federal or state criminal offense;
+- (d) Any consideration that Epstein had provided to Government or law enforcement agencies in the past; and
+- (e) Any other consideration of any type that Epstein offered to provide or had provided in the past that could provide a basis for the Government extending Epstein a more generous or lenient plea bargain or non-prosecution agreement than would be received by any other similarly situated child abuse suspect.
+
+23. The Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771(c)(1), requires the Government to use its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that will assist Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in protecting their rights under the CVRA, including all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government previously identified as being helpful to the victims but refused to provide based on its legal interpretation (now rejected by the Court) that the CVRA did not apply to this case because no indictment was filed.
+
+24. In the course of its investigation of Epstein and negotiations with Epstein, the Government (i.e., federal investigators and prosecutors) shared documents, correspondence, and information with other persons outside the federal government, including state and local prosecuting and law enforcement agencies, prosecuting and law enforcement agencies in other countries, Epstein's legal counsel, legal counsel for crime victims, and other entities. Please provide all documents, correspondence, and other information that the Government shared with any entity or person outside the federal government, including all correspondence (including emails) with those entities or persons.
+
+25. After the victims had made extensive efforts to try and reach a stipulated set of facts in this case, in March 2011 the Government refused to negotiate about such facts. Accordingly, at that time the victims filed various motions to obtain evidence in this case and, at the same time, the victims voluntarily made all initial disclosures on their part that are required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1). Please provide all initial disclosures required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including all disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1).
+
+# DEFINITIONS
+
+For the purpose of construing the foregoing discvery requests, the following terms are defined:
+
+The term "documents" means and includes, without limitation, all writings of any kind, including the originals and all non-identical copies or drafts, whether different from the original by reason of any notation made on such copy or draft or otherwise including, without limitation, correspondence, memoranda, notes, diaries, statistics, letters, e-mails, electronic computer files, telegrams, minutes, contracts, reports, studies, checks, statements, receipts, returns, summaries, pamphlets, books, prospectuses, interoffice communications, offers, notations of any sort of conversation, telephone calls, meetings or other communications, bulletins, printed matter, computer print-outs, teletypes, facsimiles, invoices, work sheets and all drafts, alterations, modifications, changes, and amendments of any of the foregoing, graphic or aural writs, records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, photographs, charts, graphs, microfiche, microfilm, videotape, recordings, motion pictures; and electronic, mechanical or electric records or representations of any kind including, without limitation, tapes, cassettes and disc recordings, and writings and printed material of every kind.
+
+The term "correspondence" means any tangible object that conveys information or memorializes information that was conveyed in tangible or oral form including, but not limited to, writings, letters, memoranda, reports, notes, e-mails, telephone logs, telephone billing information, telephone recordings, and interoffice communications.
+
+The term "Epstein's victims" means any person that the Government identified as a possible victim of a sex offense committed by Jeffrey Epstein, including Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, all victims identified in attachment to the non-prosecution agreement entered into by Epstein, and another person that the Government investigated as a possible victim of Epstein's sex offenses.
+
+The term "Government" means the federal government, including all employees of and components of the United States Department of Justice (such as, the Office of the Attorney General, the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, the Criminal Divisions, the Office of Professional Responsibility, the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, the U.S. Attorney's Offices for the Southern District and Middle District of Florida, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation) and other federal government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities related to the Epstein case (such as the Internal Revenue Service). This request for production seeks all documents, correspondence, and other information held by all of these entities, including all employees of and components of the Justice Department that worked on or were in any way involved the Epstein investigation and/or that possess information relevant to the victims' claims.
+
+The term "including" means containing within the request, but not limiting the request.
+
+The term "witness statement" means any document or other recording in any form (including oral form) reflecting, recording, or otherwise memorializing a statement made or information conveyed by a potential witness, including for example FBI 302's. The term includes information collected by any law enforcement, prosecuting or government agency, including all federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies located in Washington, D.C., or Florida.
+
+### NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT
+
+If any of the foregoing requests cover grand jury transcripts, do not provide the grand jury transcript. If any of the foregoing requests include documents that quote directly from a grand jury transcript, please redact that particular quotation.
+
+## PRIVILEGE LOG
+
+If you believe that any document, correspondence, or other information requested in this request is subject to a privilege and if you intend to assert that privilege, please provide a "privilege log" consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g), including a description a document that is consistent with Local Rule 26.1(g)(3)(B). Your privilege log should include the type of document, general subject matter of the document, date of the document, and author and addressee of the document or correspondence.
+
+### REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN
+
+If you believe that complying with any of the foregoing requests would be unduly burdensome, please contact victims counsel — Bradley J. Edwards — to discuss ways to reduce any such burden.
+
+DATED: October 3, 2011
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
+
+
+
+and
+
+Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake Cit UT 84112
+
+
+
+Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2
+
+## CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
+
+The foregoing document was served on October 3, 2011, on the following via US Mail and E-Mail Transmission:
+
+Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafafia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401
+
+
+
+Attorneys for the Government
+
+Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131
+
+
+
+Attorneys for Proposed Intervenors Roy Black et al.
+
+Respectfully Submitted,
+
+S/ Bradley J. Edwards
+
+Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8d566cfd84a620ebd247f9f79a3cbcbb71aefbd5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/EFTA00205884.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,711 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205884.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 13,
+ "chars": 37274,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.97,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_11_Picture_11.jpeg",
+ "_page_12_Picture_2.jpeg",
+ "_page_12_Picture_7.jpeg",
+ "_page_12_Picture_10.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT \nSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.7441101074219,
+ 72.08999999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 411.7441101074219,
+ 99.603515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 199.512,
+ 99.603515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S FIRST REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION \nTO THE GOVERNMENT REGARDING INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THEIR \nPENDING ACTION CONCERN THE CRIME VICTIMS RIGHTS ACT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 83.844,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.992,
+ 290.78999999999996
+ ],
+ [
+ 529.992,
+ 334.35357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 83.844,
+ 334.35357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "BACKGROUND",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 456.8399999999999
+ ],
+ [
+ 353.0594482421875,
+ 472.3535461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 258.264,
+ 472.3535461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DISCOVERY REOUESTED",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.85394287109375,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 383.85394287109375,
+ 293.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 228.276,
+ 293.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "DEFINITIONS",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 139.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.04656982421875,
+ 139.32
+ ],
+ [
+ 349.04656982421875,
+ 155.853515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 263.15999999999997,
+ 155.853515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "NO GRAND JURY TRANSCRIPTS SOUGHT",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.1942138671875,
+ 209.79000000000002
+ ],
+ [
+ 430.1942138671875,
+ 224.103515625
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 224.103515625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "PRIVILEGE LOG",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.4736328125,
+ 291.6
+ ],
+ [
+ 357.4736328125,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ],
+ [
+ 253.98,
+ 306.97357177734375
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "REDUCING UNDUE BURDEN",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 220.32,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9903259277344,
+ 416.34000000000003
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.9903259277344,
+ 431.1035461425781
+ ],
+ [
+ 220.32,
+ 431.1035461425781
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.4544677734375,
+ 277.83000000000004
+ ],
+ [
+ 390.4544677734375,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ],
+ [
+ 224.60399999999998,
+ 293.10357666015625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 50
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 25
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 9
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 2,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 3,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 82
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 42
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 4,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 85
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 5,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 87
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 6,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 88
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 45
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 7
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 7,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 91
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 8,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 86
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 44
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 9,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 84
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 43
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListItem",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "ListGroup",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 10,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 79
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 40
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 6
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 11,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 61
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 12,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 59
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 30
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 11
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 3
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205884"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_11_Picture_11.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_11_Picture_11.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..2f19000bebcfbd786de32dbfae46215b8973b4af
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_11_Picture_11.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:26b37682244127bc2566426139356f56a568fd18aed21f9b973c79715c32c7e0
+size 3816
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_10.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_10.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e0908d8c1ff1a9097418a96c056f22b4c6b83369
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_10.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:df998442684ea1fb8379750bd6cdf4b2485240d44444894316412742c3e15da7
+size 1472
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_2.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_2.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..a2b1b0fb37f101d6152be2ab661c6f49706d5b24
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_2.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:bef2104b444b094a0763be4527ebfb5d0866c7243eb17810eb7350ce02eeee94
+size 2676
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_7.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_7.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..da3ca639e743eb31f8414ee77792f334db270bf8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205884/_page_12_Picture_7.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:ddc4a250b61aae7b003be1b28efe04149133a44787458c8e4c4c71c8d433283b
+size 3086
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..b3659e7168e88d34912ca16b02736d72ee339995
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.md
@@ -0,0 +1,62 @@
+From: "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
+To: "[REDACTED]" <[REDACTED]>
+
+**Subject:** Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe v. United States of America Reply to Response to Motion
+
+**Date:** Fri, 14 Oct 2011 22:41:20 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+---
+
+**This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.**
+
+**\*\*\*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS\*\*\*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
+
+U.S. District Court
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+**Notice of Electronic Filing**
+
+The following transaction was entered by Perczek, Jacqueline on 10/14/2011 at 6:41 PM EDT and filed on 10/14/2011
+
+**Case Name:** Doe v. United States of America
+
+**Case Number:** [9:08-cv-80736-KAM](#)
+
+**Filer:** Jeffrey Epstein
+
+**Document Number:** [108](#)
+
+**Docket Text:**
+
+**REPLY to Response to Motion re [93] MOTION to Intervene For Limited Intervention filed by Jeffrey Epstein. (Perczek, Jacqueline)**
+
+**9:08-cv-80736-KAM Notice has been electronically mailed to:**
+
+[REDACTED] [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
+
+Bradley James Edwards [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
+
+Bruce Reinhart [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
+
+[REDACTED] [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
+
+Jacqueline Perczek [REDACTED], [REDACTED]
+
+Jay C. Howell [REDACTED]
+
+Roy Eric Black
+
+9:08-cv-80736-KAM Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at
+
+The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
+
+Document description:Main Document
+
+Original filenamem/a
+
+Electronic document Stamp:
+
+[STAMP dcecfStamp\_11 1105629215 [Date=10/14/2011] [FileNumber=9348321- 0] [53cc70f2e009db090ed6f296adc0cf4e2efIc254868996ade249647708782cb68a c912811 aace7066303d831eaad347b8007e561582940b4ae007acc22655a64]]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..35c8e6461a3d93bbb84d373d1954383932c99903
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205897/EFTA00205897.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,135 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205897.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2276,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 7.46,
+ "image_assets": [],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 324.0
+ ],
+ [
+ 181.76399999999998,
+ 337.77
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 337.77
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Docket Text:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 451.9800000000001
+ ],
+ [
+ 99.144,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ],
+ [
+ 31.212,
+ 464.12999999999994
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 77
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 46
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 36
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 4
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 8
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205897"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ef116928022d6f4bc682d480b22a6bd6e3a39eeb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.md
@@ -0,0 +1,37 @@
+To: (USAFLS)" <
+
+Subject: Doe I. USAO
+
+Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 20:48:01 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+Inline-
+
+ATT00001 Images:
+
+Hi
+
+In a little while, I will be filing Epstein's omnibus reply in support of his motion to intervene. It is one pleading, that replies to your response and to Cassell's response. It was better and more efficient to do one pleading. It will be 19 pages. Do you oppose a motion to file an overlong pleading? Cassell says he opposes anything longer than 15 pages.
+
+Also, my reply to Cassell's response to the supplemental briefing filed by the would-be intervenor lawyers is due early next week. I will be filing a motion for an extension until October 31. Cassell has no objection. Can I say the govt has no objection either?
+
+Thanks,
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+
+
+201 South Biscayne Boulevard
+
+Suite 1300
+
+Miami, Florida 33131
+
+O: (305) 371-6421
+
+Fax: (305) 358-2006
+
+www.royblack.com
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9112fa71c32c2dbab7755bd63f9e66090ed42388
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/EFTA00205899.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205899.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1355,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.0,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 66
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 33
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 20
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205899"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..30d6318ed02f2d696b9fb2ebde3080ea4741cda4
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205899/_page_0_Picture_12.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:814420ea37826b1ed881583862d2c660362e24bb9c4861185430840a2aae3a50
+size 7721
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..af4260f2151ce318967a4e72b82451cdb93c5339
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.md
@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+
+
+**To:** "JPerczek@royblack.com"
+
+**Subject:** Re: Doe [. USAO
+
+**Date:** Sat, 15 Oct 2011 01:01:08 +0000
+
+**Importance:** Normal
+
+**Inline-
+Images:** ATT00001
+
+---
+
+Hi Jackie: I am so sorry. I just received this. I was traveling today. Of course, no objection.
+
+
+
+---
+
+**From:** Jackie Perczek [mailto:JPerczek@royblack.com]
+
+**Sent:** Friday, October 14, 2011 04:48 PM
+
+
+
+**Subject:** Doe [. USAO
+
+
+
+In a little while, I will be filing Epstein's omnibus reply in support of his motion to intervene. It is one pleading, that replies to your response and to Cassell's response. It was better and more efficient to do one pleading. It will be 19 pages. Do you oppose a motion to file an overlong pleading? Cassell says he opposes anything longer than 15 pages.
+
+Also, my reply to Cassell's response to the supplemental briefing filed by the would-be intervenor lawyers is due early next week. I will be filing a motion for an extension until October 31. Cassell has no objection. Can I say the govt has no objection either?
+
+Thanks,
+
+Jackie Perczek, Esq.
+
+
+
+\*\*\*\*\*
+
+The information in this email transmission is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this transmission (including any attachments) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender by email reply. Thank you.
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..9aa227093f1015b5b532104ad43d13345ab12b72
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/EFTA00205900.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,64 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205900.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 1,
+ "chars": 1661,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 6.04,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_102.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_105.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg",
+ "_page_0_Picture_112.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "surya",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 52
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 31
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 26
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 5
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 2
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205900"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_102.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_102.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5eacd3d74ba811746e0290f022e6b5d8ad489cdb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_102.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:282321222f2df44b4902e26c9bad9489eb932fd66d54e7955eea898888c781b5
+size 1555
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_105.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_105.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..8bb653222d016c5ae23acf4e92a1c72769f11291
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_105.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:9cef7cb01a77d4f6662b2dcd4c99fc8967bbecf465bd4ab4fb9114d8cd41983b
+size 1673
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..7da055c8e0dd65a3a27cb4ba3a0cdbfafdb31334
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_107.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:f0da518da924e0eeae6198c0079f26dc1393596d2bf569898cdeca9a911966ef
+size 1141
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_112.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_112.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..5e2af8a6c1e4b33e35684fe6a82ed3960ace7745
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_112.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:2409a97a3a90dd47ab8324e7605b1f6f908eb743e47da4b319a69e93b9c46264
+size 5786
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..e57e504cc8a7e65557a57a0cb9ad46999aec499b
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205900/_page_0_Picture_95.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:baf2c45be0f96ad3e7d6708d328d411fa4a6742629ad90b17621af5c96988b80
+size 3877
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..83f2ae5ea4e7a033cfb83281cd845a312335a9a5
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.md
@@ -0,0 +1,67 @@
+From: "cmecfautosender®flsd.uscourts.gov"
+
+To: "flsd\_cmecf notice®flsd.uscourts.gov"
+
+Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe I United States of America Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages
+
+Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 23:06:46 +0000
+
+Importance: Normal
+
+This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CM/ECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended.
+
+\*\*\*NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS\*\*\* Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants) to receive one free electronic copy of all documents filed electronically, if receipt is required by law or directed by the filer. PACER access fees apply to all other users. To avoid later charges, download a copy of each document during this first viewing. However, if the referenced document is a transcript, the free copy and 30 page limit do not apply.
+
+U.S. District Court
+
+Southern District of Florida
+
+## Notice of Electronic Filing
+
+The following transaction was entered by Perczek, Jacqueline on 10/14/2011 at 7:06 PM EDT and filed on 10/14/2011
+
+Case Name: Doe I United States of America
+
+Case Number: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
+
+Filer: Jeffrey Epstein
+
+Document Number: 109
+
+## Docket Text:
+
+MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages in Omnibus Reply In Support of Motion For Limited Intervention by Jeffrey Epstein. (Perczek, Jacqueline)
+
+9:08-cv-80736-KAM Notice has been electronically mailed to:
+
+
+
+Bradley James Edwards brad@pathtojustice.com, ecf®pathtojustice.com
+
+Bruce Reinhart ecf@brucereinhartlaw.com, asabater@brucereinhartlaw.com
+
+Dexter Lee dexter.lee@usdoj.gov, andrea.neumann2®usdoj.gov, USAFLS-HQDKT@usdoj.gov
+
+Jacqueline Perczek pleading@royblack.com, JackieP@Toyblack.com
+
+Jay C. Howell jaygayhowell.com
+
+Jay P. Lefkowitz lefkowitz@kirkland.com
+
+Roy Eric Black pleading®royblack.com
+
+9:08-cv-80736-KAM Notice has not been delivered electronically to those listed below and will be provided by other means. For further assistance, please contact our Help Desk at 1-888-318-2260.:
+
+The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:
+
+Document description:Main Document
+
+Original filenamem/a
+
+Electronic document Stamp:
+
+[STAMP dcecfStamp\_11 1105629215 [Date=10/14/2011] [FileNumber=9348365-
+
+0] [0ba6240c15a4b83689a2dceed09ae1f4d9ce7c69d54bf2a10fae5a25e53e0a7fe8
+
+579805fa9a8054158b2b7b2ba88742310996241a7626054a37d8e2b0467477]]
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.metadata.json b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.metadata.json
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..fac76a5ef2d32015f9efc0db0eea26b6b11bd4d9
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/EFTA00205901.metadata.json
@@ -0,0 +1,141 @@
+{
+ "source_pdf": "/home/robbd/my/apps/epstein-index/data/raw/ds9/EFTA00205901.pdf",
+ "engine": {
+ "marker_major": "2",
+ "marker_version": "2.0.0",
+ "mode": "balanced",
+ "use_llm": false,
+ "force_ocr": false,
+ "disable_ocr": false,
+ "output_format": "markdown",
+ "preserve_source": false
+ },
+ "fingerprint": "d889ea60d5548ac4",
+ "pages": 2,
+ "chars": 2530,
+ "elapsed_seconds": 1.23,
+ "image_assets": [
+ "_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg"
+ ],
+ "marker_metadata": {
+ "table_of_contents": [
+ {
+ "title": "Notice of Electronic Filing",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.3742218017578,
+ 321.57000000000005
+ ],
+ [
+ 184.3742218017578,
+ 338.2330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 338.2330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "title": "Docket Text:",
+ "heading_level": null,
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "polygon": [
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 450.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 101.648193359375,
+ 450.36
+ ],
+ [
+ 101.648193359375,
+ 465.7330322265625
+ ],
+ [
+ 30.6,
+ 465.7330322265625
+ ]
+ ]
+ }
+ ],
+ "page_stats": [
+ {
+ "page_id": 0,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 71
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 34
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "SectionHeader",
+ 2
+ ],
+ [
+ "Picture",
+ 1
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ },
+ {
+ "page_id": 1,
+ "text_extraction_method": "pdftext",
+ "block_counts": [
+ [
+ "Span",
+ 23
+ ],
+ [
+ "Line",
+ 12
+ ],
+ [
+ "Text",
+ 10
+ ],
+ [
+ "PageFooter",
+ 1
+ ]
+ ],
+ "block_metadata": {
+ "llm_request_count": 0,
+ "llm_error_count": 0,
+ "llm_tokens_used": 0,
+ "previous_text": "",
+ "previous_type": "",
+ "previous_order": 0
+ }
+ }
+ ],
+ "debug_data_path": "debug_data/EFTA00205901"
+ }
+}
\ No newline at end of file
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..eec7905749f21594a9b7ba6789167bf767227a2e
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205901/_page_0_Picture_18.jpeg
@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
+version https://git-lfs.github.com/spec/v1
+oid sha256:4fc1f3724408e3230fb234fa9e0f7594124960f417a7daeddd135e23c116b5c1
+size 7978
diff --git a/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205903/EFTA00205903.md b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205903/EFTA00205903.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..1a130f00ecf9fdf53ba7f61c7d6107dadc97dd16
--- /dev/null
+++ b/marker2/ds9/EFTA00205903/EFTA00205903.md
@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+### UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
+
+CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON
+
+JANE DOES #1 AND #2,
+
+Plaintiffs,
+
+vs.
+
+UNITED STATES,
+
+Defendant.
+
+/
+
+ORDER
+
+THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and vlotion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).' All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises.
+
+x27; The Court is awaiting supplemental briefing on the Motion to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz (DE 56) and will rule on that motion after it is fully briefed. Also, because the proposed interveners seek intervention to request a protective order against disclosure of certain correspondences at issue in Plaintiffs' Motion to Use Correspondence to Prove Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act and to Have Their Unredacted Pleadings Unsealed (DE 51), the Court will defer ruling on the latter motion until the intervention motion is ripe for review.
+
+# Background'
+
+Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 are alleged victims of federal sex crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein in Palm Beach County. Between 2001 and 2007, Epstein sexually abused multiple underage girls at his Palm Beach mansion, including Plaintiffs. In 2006, the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") opened an investigation into allegations that Epstein was inducing underage girls to engage in sexual acts. The case was eventually presented to the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida, which accepted it for investigation. The Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office was also investigating similar allegations against Epstein. Plaintiffs allege that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office's investigation developed a strong case for a federal prosecution against Epstein based on "overwhelming" evidence.
+
+In June 2007, the FBI delivered to Jane Doe #1 a standard victim-notification letter, which explained that the case against Epstein was "under investigation" and notified Jane Doe #1 of her rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act ("CVRA"). In August 2007, Jane Doe #2 received a similar notification letter.
+
+In September 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office began plea discussions. The negotiations led to an agreement under which Epstein would plead guilty to two state felony offenses for solicitation of prostitution and procurement of minors for prostitution and the U.S.
+
+This background discussion is based on the allegations in Plaintiffs' Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act (DE I) and the Statement of Material Facts in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52). These allegations are not yet supported by evidence and the Court relies on them here solely to provide the context for the threshold legal issues addressed in this order. As discussed below, further factual development is necessary to resolve the additional issues raised in Plaintiffs' motions.
+
+Attorney's Office would agree not to prosecute Epstein for federal offenses. On September 24, 2007, Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office executed a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") under these terms.
+
+Plaintiffs contend that the U.S. Attorney's Office did not confer with them regarding the plea discussions and, in fact, intentionally kept secret the negotiations and the NPA. From September 24, 2007, the day on which the NPA was executed, through June 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office did not notify either Plaintiff of the existence of the NPA.
+
+During this period, Plaintiffs communicated multiple times with the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office, but neither Plaintiff was informed of the NPA. On January 10, 2008, the FBI sent letters to Plaintiffs advising them that "[t]his case is currently under investigation," but failing to disclose the existence of the NPA. On January 32, 2008, Jane Doe #1 met with FBI agents and attorneys from the U.S. Attorney's Office to discuss her abuse by Epstein. The government did not disclose the existence of the NPA. In mid-June 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel contacted the Assistant United States Attorney ("AUSA") handling their case to discuss the status of the investigation. The AUSA did not disclose the existence of the NPA. On June 27, 2008, the U.S. Attorney's Office notified Plaintiffs' counsel that Epstein was scheduled to plead guilty in state court on June 30, 2008. The U.S. Attorney's Office did not disclose the existence of the NPA nor the relationship between Epstein's state plea and the U.S. Attorney's Office's agreement to forgo federal charges. On July 3, 2008, Plaintiffs' counsel sent a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office stating Jane Doe #1's desire that it bring federal charges against Epstein.
+
+On July 7, 2008, Jane Doe #1 filed a petition in this Court to enforce her rights under the CVRA! Jane Doe #1 alleged that she believed plea discussions were under way between Epstein and the U.S. Attorney's Office, and that the government, by failing to notify her of this development, had violated her rights under the CVRA. The United States responded to the petition on July 9, 2008, arguing that (1) a federal indictment had never been returned against Epstein and therefore the CVRA did not attach, and (2) nevertheless, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best efforts to comply with the CVRA. The government's response also disclosed that the U.S. Attorney's Office had entered into the NPA with Epstein.
+
+On July 11, 2008, this Court held a hearing on Jane Doe #1's petition, at which Jane Doe #2 was added as a plaintiff. At the hearing, Plaintiffs explained that their petition did not present an emergency and that therefore an immediate resolution was not necessary. On August 14, 2008, the Court held a status conference and ordered the United States to turn over the NPA to all identified victims, including Plaintiffs, and further ordered the parties to work out the terms of a protective order governing the NPA's disclosure.
+
+This action was relatively inactive for the next year and one-half while Plaintiffs litigated civil actions against Epstein. After those cases settled, Plaintiffs attempted to resolve their CVRA dispute with the U.S. Attorney's Office. On March 18, 2011, after the parties' settlement efforts failed, Plaintiffs filed a series of motions, which the Court now addresses in turn, along with Motion to Intervene.
+
+x27;Jane Doe #2 joined this action after Jane Doe # I filed the initial Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victims' Rights Act.
I. Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act
The CVRA was designed to protect victims' rights and ensure them involvement in the criminal justice process. United Stalest Moussaoui, 483 F.3d 220, 234 (4ih Cir. 2007); Kenna,. U.S. Dist. Court, 435 F.3d 1011, 1016 (9th Cir. 2006) ("The [CVRA] was enacted to make crime victims full participants in the criminal justice system."). The statute enumerates the following eight rights:
- (1) The right to be reasonably protected from the accused.
- (2) The right to reasonable, accurate, and timely notice of any public court proceeding, or any parole proceeding, involving the crime or of any release or escape of the accused.
- (3) The right not to be excluded from any such public court proceeding, unless the court, after receiving clear and convincing evidence, determines that testimony by the victim would be materially altered if the victim heard other testimony at that proceeding.
- (4) The right to be reasonably heard at any public proceeding in the district court involving release, plea, sentencing, or any parole proceeding.
- (5) The reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case.
- (6) The right to full and timely restitution as provided in law.
- (7) The right to proceedings free from unreasonable delay.
- (8) The right to be treated with fairness and with respect for the victim's dignity and privacy.
18 U.S.C. § 3771(a).
If a prosecution is underway, the CVRA grants victims standing to vindicate their rights in the ongoing criminal action. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). If, however, a prosecution is not underway, the victims may initiate a new action under the CVRA in the district court of the
district where the crime occurred.' Id. The statute also tasks the district courts and the prosecutors with the responsibility of protecting these rights. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b)(1) ("[T]he court shall ensure that the crime victim is afforded the rights described in subsection (a)."); § 3771(c)(1) ("Officers and employees of the Department of Justice . . . shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights described in subsection (a).").
Here, Plaintiffs first argue that as a matter of law the CVRA's protections attach before a formal charge is filed against the criminal defendant. Accordingly, Plaintiffs contend that the CVRA applied here and that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights; namely, their rights to confer, to be treated with fairness, and to accurate and timely notice of court proceedings. Based on these violations, Plaintiffs request that this Court set a briefing schedule and hearing on the appropriate remedy, which according to Plaintiffs is to invalidate the nonprosecution agreement.
The United States argues that as a matter of law the CVRA does not apply before formal charges are filed, i.e., before an indictment or similar charging document, and therefore does not apply here because formal charges were never filed against Epstein. The United States further argues that even if the CVRA applied here, the U.S. Attorney's Office complied with its requirements.
The Court first addresses the threshold issue whether the CVRA attaches before the government brings formal charges against the defendant The Court holds that it does because the
Here, because no criminal case was pending, Plaintiffs filed their petition as a new matter in this judicial district, which the Clerk of Court docketed as a civil action.
statutory language clearly contemplates pre-charge proceedings. For instance, subsections (a)(2) and (a)(3) provide rights that attach to "any public court proceeding ... involving the crime." Similarly, subsection (b) requires courts to ensure CVRA rights in "any court proceeding involving an offense against a crime victim." Court proceedings involving the crime are not limited to post-complaint or post-indictment proceedings, but can also include initial appearances and bond hearings, both of which can take place before a formal charge. By way of example, under Rule 5(a)(1)(A) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, upon arrest the defendant must be taken before a magistrate judge "without unnecessary delay" for an initial appearance. If the arrest takes place on a weekday, "without unnecessary delay" will typically require that the initial appearance occur the following morning, which will often be within twenty-four hours of arrest. See United States,. Mendoza, 473 F.2d 697, 702 (56 Cir. 1973) (holding that the government satisfied Rule 5's "without unnecessary delay" requirement by bringing the defendant before the magistrate judge on the first weekday morning following the arrest). By contrast, Rule 5(b) requires that where the defendant is arrested without a warrant, the government must file the complaint "promptly." The Supreme Court has interpreted "promptly" under Rule 5(b) as generally requiring that the complaint be filed within forty-eight hours of arrest. Cnty. Of Riverside.. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 56-57 (1991). It is therefore possible that where the defendant is arrested on a weekday without a warrant, the initial appearance—which may also involve the detention or bond hearing under Rule 5(d)(3)—will take place before the government files the criminal complaint.
Subsection (cX1) requires that "Officers and employees of the Department of Justice and other departments and agencies of the United States engaged in the detection, investigation, or
prosecution of crime shall make their best efforts to see that crime victims are notified of, and accorded, the rights in subsection (a)." (Emphasis added). Subsection (c)(I)'s requirement that officials engaged in "detection [or] investigation" afford victims the rights enumerated in subsection (a) surely contemplates pre-charge application of the CVRA.
Subsection (d)(3) explains that the CVRA's enumerated rights "shall be asserted in the district court in which a defendant is being prosecuted for the crime or, if no prosecution is underway, in the district court in the district in which the crime occurred." (Emphasis added). If the CVRA's rights may be enforced before a prosecution is underway, then, to avoid a strained reading of the statute, those rights must attach before a complaint or indictment formally charges the defendant with the crime.
This interpretation is consistent with other federal decisions that have addressed the scope of the CVRA. For instance, in In re Dean, 527 F.3d 391 (5\* Cir. 2008), the court held that subsection (a)(5)'s "right to confer" applied before any prosecution is underway. Id. at 394. Specifically, the court explained:
The district court acknowledged that "there are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway." Logically, this includes the CVRA's establishment of victims' reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the Government." At least in the posture of this case (and we do not speculate on the applicability to other situations), the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges and to ascertain the victims' views on the possible details of a plea bargain.
Id. at 394 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). Federal district courts have reached similar conclusions. See, e.g., United States'. Rubin, 558 F. Supp. 2d 411, 417 n.5 (E.D.N.Y. 2008) (discussing victims' "ability to seek pre-prosecution relief' under the CVRA); United States.. Okun, No. 08-132, 2009 WL 790042, at '2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 24, 2009) ("[T]he Fifth
Circuit has noted that victims acquire rights under the CVRA even before prosecution. This view is supported by the statutory language, which gives the victims rights before the accepting of plea agreements and, therefore, before adjudication of guilt."); United States" BP Prods N. Am. Inc., No. 07-434, 2008 WL 501321, at \*11 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2008) ("There are clearly rights under the CVRA that apply before any prosecution is underway."), mandamus denied in part, In re Dean 527 F.3d 391 (5ih Cir. 2008).
The United States argues that because the CVRA accords rights related to "any court proceeding," 18 U.S.C. §§ 3771(b)(1), (d)(3), and "in the case," § 3771(b)(5), the CVRA applies only after formal charges are filed. The Court finds this argument unavailing. First, as discussed above, "court proceedings" can occur before formal charges are filed. Similarly, subsection (a)(5)'s reference to the right to confer with "the attorney for the Government in the case," is not limited to post-charge proceedings, as the United States is represented by attorneys in each criminal case at, for example, initial appearances and bond hearings.' Last, the government's interpretation ignores the additional language throughout the statute that clearly contemplates pre-charge protections, such as subsection (c)(1)'s mandate that U.S. agencies involved at the "detection" and "investigation" stage use their best efforts to accord victims their enumerated rights under the CVRA and subsection (d)(3)'s provision that victims may vindicate their CVRA
For this reason, the Court respectfully disagrees with the interpretation adopted in In re Petersen, No. 10-298, 2010 WL 5108692 (N.D. Ind. Dec. 8, 2010), upon which the United States relies. See id. at \*2 (holding that a "victim's 'right to be treated with fairness and with respect for [his or her] dignity and privacy' may apply before any prosecution is underway and isn't necessarily tied to a `court proceeding' or `case,'" but concluding that "the right 'to confer with the attorney for the Government in the case' ... arise[s] only after charges have been brought against a defendant and a case has been opened"). But see In re Dean, 527 F.3d at 394 (holding that under subsection (a)(5), "the government should have fashioned a reasonable way to inform the victims of the likelihood of criminal charges").
rights even if "no prosecution is underway." See United States.. DBB, Inc., 180 F.3d 1277, 1281 (11ih Cir. 1999) ("[W]e read the statute to give full effect to each of its provisions. We do not look at one word or term in isolation, but instead we look to the entire statutory context.") (citation omitted).
The Court also rejects the United States' argument that pre-charge CVRA rights could impair prosecutorial discretion and decision-making. Any encroachment into the prosecutors' discretion is expressly limited by the CVRA itself, which provides: "Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to impair the prosecutorial discretion of the Attorney General or any officer under his direction." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(6). As the court explained in Rubin, "there is absolutely no suggestion in the statutory language that victims have a right independent of the government to prosecute a crime, set strategy, or object to or appeal pretrial or in limine orders .... In short, the CVRA, for the most part, gives victims a voice, not a veto." 558 F. Supp. at 418; see also BP Prods N. Am., 2008 WL 501321, at \*15 ("Even under an expansive approach, the reasonable right to confer on a proposed plea agreement and the government's obligation to provide notice of that right is subject to the limit that the CVRA not impair prosecutorial discretion."). Thus, to the extent that the victims' pre-charge CVRA rights impinge upon prosecutorial discretion, under the plain language of the statute those rights must yield.
Having determined that as a matter of law the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed, the Court must address whether the particular rights asserted here attached and, if so, whether the U.S. Attorney's Office violated those rights. However, the Court lacks a factual record to support such findings and must therefore defer ruling on these two issues pending the limited discovery discussed below.
II. Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts
For the reasons stated on the record at the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the Court will deny Plaintiffs' request to have their facts accepted as true.
III. Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence
Plaintiffs request an order from the Court "directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case." (DE 50 at 1). Specifically, Plaintiffs seek all information and material known to the government that may be favorable to the victims regarding possible violations of their rights under the CVRA. The United States opposes the motion, arguing that neither the CVRA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty upon the U.S. Attorney's Office to provide evidence to Plaintiffs here.
At the August 12, 2011 hearing on this motion, the United States agreed that this Court, under its inherent authority to manage this case, could impose discovery obligations on each party. Because the Court finds that some factual development is necessary to resolve the remaining issues in this case, it will permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to conduct limited discovery in the form of document requests and requests for admissions from the U.S. Attorney's Office. Either party may request additional discovery if necessary.
Because the Court will allow this limited factual development, it is unnecessary to decide here whether the CVRA or the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide discovery rights in this context. The Court therefore reserves ruling on Plaintiffs' motion.
IN'. 11 Order Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule
seeks leave to intervene as a party-in-interest under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Reinhart seeks to intervene to file a motion for sanctions based on allegedly "unfounded factual and legal accusations made about Movant in Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act." (DE 79 at 1). In that motion, Plaintiffs alleged that Reinhart, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney, "joined Epstein's payroll shortly after important decisions were made limiting Epstein's criminal liability" and improperly represented Epstein victims in follow-on civil suits. (DE 48 at 22). Plaintiffs contend that such conduct "give[s], at least, the improper appearance that Reinhart may have attempted to curry [favor] with Epstein and then reap his reward through favorable employment." (DE 48 at 23). Reinhart takes great offense to these accusation—which he contends are false, irrelevant to the CVRA claims, and gratuitous—and seeks intervention to rebut these allegations and move for sanctions.
Under Rule 24(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "the court may permit anyone to intervene who ... has a claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact." It is "wholly discretionary with the court whether to allow intervention under Rule 24(b) and even though there is a common question of law or fact, or the requirements of Rule 24(b) are otherwise satisfied, the court may refuse to allow intervention." In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1246 (11th 2006). The Court will deny request to intervene.
First, the Court finds that claim does not share a common question of law or fact with the CVRA action. maims that two paragraphs of Plaintiffs' forty-page motion make groundless and bad-faith accusations against his integrity and character. However, the veracity of Plaintiffs' two paragraphs—i.e., whether Reinhart used his position at the U.S. Attorney's Office to ingratiate himself with Epstein and advance his career in private practice—involves no common questions with the Plaintiffs' claims that the U.S. Attorney's Office violated their CVRA rights through the process in which it entered into the NPA with Epstein. Indeed, motion argues that the allegations against him are "irrelevant" and that Plaintiffs "do[] not make any effort to connect these allegations to the relief [they] seek[]." (DE 79 at 2).
Second, even if these accusations shared common questions with Plaintiffs' CVRA claims, the Court would exercise its discretion and deny intervention. The Court cannot permit anyone slighted by allegations in court pleadings to intervene and conduct mini-trials to vindicate their reputation. Absent some other concrete interest in these proceedings, the Court does not believe that the allegations here are sufficiently harmful to justify permissive intervention. Reinhart has publicly aired his opposition to and denial of Plaintiffs' contentions, both on this docket and in open court, and the Court finds that further proceedings on this issue are unwarranted. For the same reason, the Court declines to conduct a sua sponte Rule 11 inquiry.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52) is GRANTED IN PART. The Court concludes that the CVRA can apply before formal charges are filed. The
Court defers ruling on the merits of Plaintiffs' CVRA claims until the parties complete the discovery ordered herein.
It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted (DE 49) is DENIED.
The Court reserves ruling Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50) pending the discovery ordered herein.
It is further ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Bruce E. Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this 26ih day of September, 2011.
rZ se KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge
+