DOJ-OGR-00005827.jpg
361 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / legal document
File Size:
361 KB
Summary
This page is from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 397) filed on October 29, 2021. The visible text discusses the Court's previous denial of the defendant's motion to strike indictment language regarding 'Minor Victim-3,' stating it was premature. The majority of the document page is heavily redacted.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Subject of the motion to strike portions of the indictment (Contextually Ghislaine Maxwell based on Case 1:20-cr-00330)
|
| Minor Victim-3 | Victim/Witness |
Subject of allegations in the indictment that the defense sought to strike
|
| PAE | Judge |
Initials in case header (Judge Paul A. Engelmayer)
|
Timeline (2 events)
2021-10-29
Filing of Document 397 in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE
Court
Unknown (Prior)
Denial of defendant's motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3
Court
Relationships (1)
Motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3
Key Quotes (2)
"The Court denied the defendant’s prior motion to strike portions of the Indictment related to Minor Victim-3"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005827.jpg
Quote #1
"explaining that it was premature to strike any language from the Indictment, because Minor Victim-3’s allegations 'may reflect conduct"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005827.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (679 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 397 Filed 10/29/21 Page 44 of 84
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
[REDACTED BLOCK]
The Court denied the defendant’s prior motion to strike portions of the Indictment related
to Minor Victim-3 (Op. & Order at 33, Dkt. No. 207), explaining that it was premature to strike
any language from the Indictment, because Minor Victim-3’s allegations “may reflect conduct
to Minor Victim-3 (Op. & Order at 33, Dkt. No. 207), explaining that it was premature to strike
any language from the Indictment, because Minor Victim-3’s allegations “may reflect conduct
43
DOJ-OGR-00005827
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document