DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
646 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
3
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
6
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
646 KB
Summary
This legal document argues against accepting a juror's claim of having 'missed' or 'forgotten' a question, labeling it self-serving nonsense. It draws a parallel to bankruptcy law, where untruthful statements are treated severely, citing case law to support the idea that reckless indifference to the truth is equivalent to fraud. The author finds it ironic that the government is excusing 'Juror No. 50's' false answers while being unwilling to afford the same leniency to the defendant, Ms. Maxwell.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Juror No. 50 | Juror |
Mentioned as having given false answers which the government has excused as an innocent mistake.
|
| Ms. Maxwell | Defendant (implied) |
Mentioned as someone the government is unwilling to afford the same indulgence (of excusing a mistake) as it has for ...
|
| Diorio | Party in a cited court case |
Cited in Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co. regarding the importance of veracity in statements.
|
| Stone | Party in a cited court case |
Cited in United States v. Stone regarding the purpose of financial disclosures.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of bankruptcy proceedings and for excusing Juror No. 50's false answers.
|
| courts | government agency |
Mentioned as repeatedly rejecting claims of mistake for false oaths and being skeptical of claims of carelessness.
|
| Kreisler-Borg Const. Co. | company |
A party in the cited court case Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Juror No. 50 provided false answers during a legal proceeding.
The document discusses bankruptcy proceedings as an example where failure to truthfully answer questions has serious consequences.
Relationships (2)
The government has gone to lengths to excuse Juror No. 50's false answers as an innocent mistake.
The document states the government is unwilling to afford Ms. Maxwell the same indulgence (of excusing a mistake) that it afforded Juror No. 50.
Key Quotes (6)
"missed it"Source
— unspecified person (implied juror)
(Part of a claim used to explain away a false answer, described as self-serving nonsense.)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #1
"forgot"Source
— unspecified person (implied juror)
(Part of a claim used to explain away a false answer, described as self-serving nonsense.)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #2
"didn’t understand"Source
— unspecified person (implied juror)
(Part of a claim used to explain away a false answer, described as self-serving nonsense.)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #3
"hangs heavily on the veracity of statements made by the bankrupt"Source
— Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co. case
(Quoted to emphasize the importance of truthfulness in legal proceedings, drawing a parallel from bankruptcy to prospective jurors.)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #4
"is to give dependable information without need of going further"Source
— United States v. Stone case
(Quoted to describe the purpose of a debtor's detailed financial disclosure (SOFA).)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #5
"must be regarded as serious business; reckless indifference to the truth, is the equivalent of fraud."Source
— Diorio v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co. case
(Quoted to explain how courts should view answers given in a system that relies on a person's word.)
DOJ-OGR-00009210.jpg
Quote #6
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,887 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 616 Filed 02/24/22 Page 20 of 32
Question 48 was not confusing or complicated and, again, there is no credible
explanation for why the victim of a sexual assault, in a case about sexual assault, would not have
taken a long look at that question. The claim that he just “missed it” or “forgot” or “didn’t
understand” is after-the-fact, self-serving, nonsense, the type of nonsense repeatedly rejected by
courts, not to mention the government, when addressing material omissions or false oaths by
omission.
explanation for why the victim of a sexual assault, in a case about sexual assault, would not have
taken a long look at that question. The claim that he just “missed it” or “forgot” or “didn’t
understand” is after-the-fact, self-serving, nonsense, the type of nonsense repeatedly rejected by
courts, not to mention the government, when addressing material omissions or false oaths by
omission.
For example, in bankruptcy proceedings the failure to truthfully answer questions about
assets or ownership interests regularly leads the government to move to dismiss the debtor’s
petition. Not surprisingly, debtors often claim confusion, mistake, or inadvertence as the reason
for the false answer. However, success of a bankruptcy program (like jury trials) “hangs heavily
on the veracity of statements made by the bankrupt”—or here, the prospective jurors. See Diorio
v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co., 407 F.2d 1330, 1330–31 (2d Cir. 1969). See also United States v.
Stone, 282 F.2d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (the purpose of a debtor filling out a detailed financial
disclosure (SOFA) “is to give dependable information without need of going further”). When a
false-oath-giver claims carelessness as the reason for the untruthful statement, courts are
skeptical because in a system that relies on a person’s word, the answers “must be regarded as
serious business; reckless indifference to the truth, is the equivalent of fraud.” Diorio, 407 F.2d
at 1330–31.
assets or ownership interests regularly leads the government to move to dismiss the debtor’s
petition. Not surprisingly, debtors often claim confusion, mistake, or inadvertence as the reason
for the false answer. However, success of a bankruptcy program (like jury trials) “hangs heavily
on the veracity of statements made by the bankrupt”—or here, the prospective jurors. See Diorio
v. Kreisler-Borg Const. Co., 407 F.2d 1330, 1330–31 (2d Cir. 1969). See also United States v.
Stone, 282 F.2d 547, 553 (2d Cir. 1960) (the purpose of a debtor filling out a detailed financial
disclosure (SOFA) “is to give dependable information without need of going further”). When a
false-oath-giver claims carelessness as the reason for the untruthful statement, courts are
skeptical because in a system that relies on a person’s word, the answers “must be regarded as
serious business; reckless indifference to the truth, is the equivalent of fraud.” Diorio, 407 F.2d
at 1330–31.
In a case like this one, which charges the defendant with perjury, it’s ironic the lengths to
which the government has gone to excuse Juror No. 50’s false answers as nothing but an
innocent mistake, an indulgence the government is unwilling to afford Ms. Maxwell.
which the government has gone to excuse Juror No. 50’s false answers as nothing but an
innocent mistake, an indulgence the government is unwilling to afford Ms. Maxwell.
15
DOJ-OGR-00009210
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document