{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "25",
    "document_number": "201c7-003",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "(Def. Ex. S ¶ 12). Moreover, the FBI announced themselves as federal agents to the defendant when they first approached her. Thus, even if the defendant was following her private security's protocol when she fled, she did so knowing that she was disobeying the directives of FBI agents, not members of the media or general public. Those actions raise the very real concern, particularly in light of the terms of her proposed package, that the defendant would prioritize the directives of her private security guards over the directives of federal law enforcement. Further, the act of wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press. The defense argues that the defendant only took those measures because that particular phone number had been released to the public, but that just suggests the defendant believed that was the only number of which law enforcement was aware. In other words, there is still reason to believe, as the Court previously found, that in the year leading up to her arrest, the defendant sought to evade not only the press, but also law enforcement. (Tr. 87).\n\nThird, the defendant has access to significant wealth. At the initial bail hearing, the Government expressed doubt that the defendant's assets were limited to the approximately $3.8 million she reported to Pretrial Services, and noted that it appeared the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control. (Tr. 28-30, 72-73). The finances outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government's suspicion that the defendant has access to far more than $3.8 million, confirm that the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services (and, by extension, the Court) during her interview, and confirm that the defendant is a person of substantial means with vast resources.5 The defendant's apparent willingness to deceive\n\n5 As noted above, the Court effectively assumed the defendant had considerably more assets than those disclosed to Pretrial Services in rejecting defense counsel's repeated offer to provide a more fulsome picture of the defendant's finances and concluding that even assuming the defense could provide a clearer description of the defendant's assets, detention was still warranted. (See Tr. 87).",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "(Def. Ex. S ¶ 12). Moreover, the FBI announced themselves as federal agents to the defendant when they first approached her. Thus, even if the defendant was following her private security's protocol when she fled, she did so knowing that she was disobeying the directives of FBI agents, not members of the media or general public. Those actions raise the very real concern, particularly in light of the terms of her proposed package, that the defendant would prioritize the directives of her private security guards over the directives of federal law enforcement. Further, the act of wrapping a cellphone in tin foil has no conceivable relevance to concerns about the press. The defense argues that the defendant only took those measures because that particular phone number had been released to the public, but that just suggests the defendant believed that was the only number of which law enforcement was aware. In other words, there is still reason to believe, as the Court previously found, that in the year leading up to her arrest, the defendant sought to evade not only the press, but also law enforcement. (Tr. 87).",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Third, the defendant has access to significant wealth. At the initial bail hearing, the Government expressed doubt that the defendant's assets were limited to the approximately $3.8 million she reported to Pretrial Services, and noted that it appeared the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services regarding the assets in her control. (Tr. 28-30, 72-73). The finances outlined in the defense submission confirm the Government's suspicion that the defendant has access to far more than $3.8 million, confirm that the defendant was less than candid with Pretrial Services (and, by extension, the Court) during her interview, and confirm that the defendant is a person of substantial means with vast resources.5 The defendant's apparent willingness to deceive",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "5 As noted above, the Court effectively assumed the defendant had considerably more assets than those disclosed to Pretrial Services in rejecting defense counsel's repeated offer to provide a more fulsome picture of the defendant's finances and concluding that even assuming the defense could provide a clearer description of the defendant's assets, detention was still warranted. (See Tr. 87).",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "Pretrial Services",
      "Government",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "201c7-003",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001167",
      "$3.8 million"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court document, likely a transcript or a memo, discussing a defendant's bail hearing and financial situation. The text is printed and there are no visible stamps or handwritten notes. The document is paginated, with this page being number 25 of 36."
}