{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "147",
    "document_number": "1:20-cv-03303",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cv-03303 Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 147 of 130\nA-5802\n\nC2GFDAU3 Edelstein 345\n1 Catherine Conrad, Juror No. 1, was the suspended lawyer. It\n2 took us two weeks to feel sure enough to even start writing the\n3 brief that they were the same person. That's why the brief\n4 goes through in excruciating detail the overlapping addresses,\n5 the phone numbers, the data. I can see now in hindsight in\n6 reading it that perhaps that is the impression that was\n7 conveyed.\n8 Q. And again you could see --\n9 A. But it was not the intent.\n10 Q. You can see the impression or one reading of the impression\n11 that's created is a false one, would you agree with me?\n12 A. No.\n13 Q. Well, the impression that's created in the brief is that\n14 you learned of the suspension only after you received the\n15 letter from the government, correct?\n16 A. I think the brief can also be read in a different way. I\n17 mean, if you start with the premise --\n18 Q. I'm sorry, it was a simple question. It was a simple\n19 question. Doesn't the brief convey the notion that you learned\n20 of the suspension report after you received the letter from the\n21 government, yes or no?\n22 A. I can see now that it may be read that way, but that was\n23 not the intent.\n24 Q. Well, it was the intent because you and Ms. Brune had\n25 specifically decided that you weren't going to include what you\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009406",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cv-03303 Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 147 of 130",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-5802",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2GFDAU3 Edelstein 345",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Catherine Conrad, Juror No. 1, was the suspended lawyer. It\n2 took us two weeks to feel sure enough to even start writing the\n3 brief that they were the same person. That's why the brief\n4 goes through in excruciating detail the overlapping addresses,\n5 the phone numbers, the data. I can see now in hindsight in\n6 reading it that perhaps that is the impression that was\n7 conveyed.\n8 Q. And again you could see --\n9 A. But it was not the intent.\n10 Q. You can see the impression or one reading of the impression\n11 that's created is a false one, would you agree with me?\n12 A. No.\n13 Q. Well, the impression that's created in the brief is that\n14 you learned of the suspension only after you received the\n15 letter from the government, correct?\n16 A. I think the brief can also be read in a different way. I\n17 mean, if you start with the premise --\n18 Q. I'm sorry, it was a simple question. It was a simple\n19 question. Doesn't the brief convey the notion that you learned\n20 of the suspension report after you received the letter from the\n21 government, yes or no?\n22 A. I can see now that it may be read that way, but that was\n23 not the intent.\n24 Q. Well, it was the intent because you and Ms. Brune had\n25 specifically decided that you weren't going to include what you",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009406",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Edelstein",
      "Ms. Brune"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "government"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cv-03303",
      "615",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009406"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}