{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "55",
    "document_number": "465",
    "date": "11/15/21",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 55 of 127 55 LB15MAX2\n1 MS. MOE: Exactly, your Honor.\n2 THE COURT: For our purposes I think we need to assume\n3 over the age of consent, correct?\n4 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think it would be ambiguous\n5 from the evidence but we are not proffering them as evidence of\n6 conduct with respect to other minors.\n7 THE COURT: OK. So, let's just start with the\n8 following statement: You are seeking to introduce e-mails that\n9 involve the defendant setting up people on dates with women\n10 over the age of consent?\n11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, because we are not able to\n12 determine the age of those individuals --\n13 THE COURT: Let's assume that you could for some of\n14 them. Right? Are you seeking to introduce those? It is clear\n15 that the women involved are over the age of the consent. Are\n16 you seeking to introduce those e-mails?\n17 MS. MOE: I think the e-mails that the defense has\n18 moved to preclude don't say one way or the other the age --\n19 THE COURT: You are fighting my hypo. So, to be\n20 clear, it is a hypothetical. If you have an e-mail involving\n21 the defendant setting someone up on a date with someone who the\n22 government knows is over the age of consent on the basis of the\n23 argument made here, are you seeking to introduce it?\n24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n25 THE COURT: And why?\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00007106",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 465 Filed 11/15/21 Page 55 of 127 55 LB15MAX2",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 MS. MOE: Exactly, your Honor.\n2 THE COURT: For our purposes I think we need to assume\n3 over the age of consent, correct?\n4 MS. MOE: Your Honor, I think it would be ambiguous\n5 from the evidence but we are not proffering them as evidence of\n6 conduct with respect to other minors.\n7 THE COURT: OK. So, let's just start with the\n8 following statement: You are seeking to introduce e-mails that\n9 involve the defendant setting up people on dates with women\n10 over the age of consent?\n11 MS. MOE: Your Honor, because we are not able to\n12 determine the age of those individuals --\n13 THE COURT: Let's assume that you could for some of\n14 them. Right? Are you seeking to introduce those? It is clear\n15 that the women involved are over the age of the consent. Are\n16 you seeking to introduce those e-mails?\n17 MS. MOE: I think the e-mails that the defense has\n18 moved to preclude don't say one way or the other the age --\n19 THE COURT: You are fighting my hypo. So, to be\n20 clear, it is a hypothetical. If you have an e-mail involving\n21 the defendant setting someone up on a date with someone who the\n22 government knows is over the age of consent on the basis of the\n23 argument made here, are you seeking to introduce it?\n24 MS. MOE: Yes, your Honor.\n25 THE COURT: And why?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00007106",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "11/15/21"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "465",
      "DOJ-OGR-00007106"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}