DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
648 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
648 KB
Summary
This legal filing argues that the case against Ms. Maxwell is weak because the anonymous accusers' stories are contradictory, uncorroborated, and fabricated for money and fame, only emerging after Epstein's death. The document also contends that the district judge erred by accepting the indictment as proof of a strong case and that the government's reliance on legal precedents is misplaced due to a lack of meaningful evidence presented.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant (implied) |
Mentioned as the person the 'anonymous accusers' began to accuse after Epstein's death.
|
| Epstein | Associated individual |
His death is cited as a key event that preceded the accusations against Ms. Maxwell.
|
| LaFontaine | Party in a legal case |
Named in the legal precedent 'United States v. LaFontaine'.
|
| Martir | Party in a legal case |
Named in the legal precedent 'United States v. Martir'.
|
| district judge | Judge |
Accused of erring by relying on the Indictment as proof of the Government's case.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Government | Government agency |
Refers to the prosecution, whose case is described as not strong and whose reliance on certain precedents is called '...
|
| United States | Government |
The plaintiff in the cited cases 'United States v. LaFontaine' and 'United States v. Martir'.
|
Timeline (2 events)
A bail revocation hearing in the LaFontaine case that lasted three days and involved a significant evidentiary proffer from the government.
Court
LaFontaine
government
Relationships (2)
The document states that 'the accusers start to point the finger at Ms. Maxwell'.
The document links the accusations against Maxwell to the timing of Epstein's death, implying a connection relevant to the case.
Key Quotes (3)
"Far from corroboration, this is fabrication."Source
— Author of the document (defense)
(Characterizing the accusations made against Ms. Maxwell.)
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
Quote #1
"Not a single one of the anonymous accusers will be able to corroborate the 25-year old stories of the other accusers."Source
— Author of the document (defense)
(Arguing that the accusers' stories are not mutually supportive.)
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
Quote #2
"The district judge erred in relying on the Indictment as proof that the Government's case is strong."Source
— Author of the document (defense)
(Criticizing a judicial decision.)
DOJ-OGR-00001377.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,369 characters)
Case 21-770, Document 57, 04/19/2021, 3080288, Page5 of 30
contrary. Not a single on of the anonymous accusers saw or heard what
purportedly happened to the other accusers. Not a single one of the
anonymous accusers will be able to corroborate the 25-year old stories of
the other accusers. Indeed, their stories are contradictory, not
corroborating. At a real hearing, the defense will demonstrate that each
of the witness' stories has dramatically changed over the years. At first,
none of the anonymous accusers even mentioned Ms. Maxwell. As they
hired the same law firm, sought money and fame, joined a movement, and
only after Epstein died, did the accusers start to point the finger at Ms.
Maxwell. Far from corroboration, this is fabrication. The district judge
erred in relying on the Indictment as proof that the Government's case is
strong.
purportedly happened to the other accusers. Not a single one of the
anonymous accusers will be able to corroborate the 25-year old stories of
the other accusers. Indeed, their stories are contradictory, not
corroborating. At a real hearing, the defense will demonstrate that each
of the witness' stories has dramatically changed over the years. At first,
none of the anonymous accusers even mentioned Ms. Maxwell. As they
hired the same law firm, sought money and fame, joined a movement, and
only after Epstein died, did the accusers start to point the finger at Ms.
Maxwell. Far from corroboration, this is fabrication. The district judge
erred in relying on the Indictment as proof that the Government's case is
strong.
4. Because there was no meaningful proffer, the Government's
reliance on United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)
and United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986), is
misplaced. Resp.¶34. In fact, those cases highlight the court's error. In
LaFontaine, for example, the bail revocation hearing lasted three days
where the government's proffer included providing tape recordings,
transcripts, and an affidavit for the court. No such evidentiary proffer
reliance on United States v. LaFontaine, 210 F.3d 125, 131 (2d Cir. 2000)
and United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1145 (2d Cir. 1986), is
misplaced. Resp.¶34. In fact, those cases highlight the court's error. In
LaFontaine, for example, the bail revocation hearing lasted three days
where the government's proffer included providing tape recordings,
transcripts, and an affidavit for the court. No such evidentiary proffer
5
DOJ-OGR-00001377
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document