{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "129",
    "document_number": "A-5814",
    "date": "02/24/22",
    "document_type": "Court Document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 129 of 130 A-5814\n\nC2grdau4 Edelstein 357\n1 BY MR. OKULA:\n2 Q. Do you mean to say that if the government hadn't asked and\n3 the Court hadn't asked, you were comfortable from an ethical\n4 and a professional standpoint to have the judge decide the\n5 motion without ever learning the facts about what Theresa\n6 Trzaskoma and you and Susan Brune and the others knew at the\n7 firm prior to receiving the government note? Is that what you\n8 are saying?\n9 THE WITNESS: I find this a difficult question to\n10 answer trying to put out of my mind all the things I now know\n11 and where we are. I firmly believe that the standard is actual\n12 knowledge. We just didn't know they were the same person.\n13 MR. OKULA: Let me try again. From a professional and\n14 ethical standpoint, are you saying that you would have felt\n15 comfortable that you had fulfilled all your obligations if the\n16 Court had decided this motion without learning of the facts\n17 concerning what your firm knew prior to receiving the Catherine\n18 Conrad letter? Yes or no.\n19 THE WITNESS: Yes.\n20 MR. OKULA: Nothing further, Judge.\n21 THE COURT: Anything further?\n22 You are excused, Ms. Edelstein.\n23 (Witness excused)\n24 THE COURT: Would the government call its next\n25 witness.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00009418",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330 Document 615 Filed 02/24/22 Page 129 of 130",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-5814",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "C2grdau4 Edelstein 357",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 BY MR. OKULA:\n2 Q. Do you mean to say that if the government hadn't asked and\n3 the Court hadn't asked, you were comfortable from an ethical\n4 and a professional standpoint to have the judge decide the\n5 motion without ever learning the facts about what Theresa\n6 Trzaskoma and you and Susan Brune and the others knew at the\n7 firm prior to receiving the government note? Is that what you\n8 are saying?\n9 THE WITNESS: I find this a difficult question to\n10 answer trying to put out of my mind all the things I now know\n11 and where we are. I firmly believe that the standard is actual\n12 knowledge. We just didn't know they were the same person.\n13 MR. OKULA: Let me try again. From a professional and\n14 ethical standpoint, are you saying that you would have felt\n15 comfortable that you had fulfilled all your obligations if the\n16 Court had decided this motion without learning of the facts\n17 concerning what your firm knew prior to receiving the Catherine\n18 Conrad letter? Yes or no.\n19 THE WITNESS: Yes.\n20 MR. OKULA: Nothing further, Judge.\n21 THE COURT: Anything further?\n22 You are excused, Ms. Edelstein.\n23 (Witness excused)\n24 THE COURT: Would the government call its next\n25 witness.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00009418",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. OKULA",
      "Theresa Trzaskoma",
      "Susan Brune",
      "Catherine Conrad",
      "Ms. Edelstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/24/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330",
      "Document 615",
      "A-5814",
      "DOJ-OGR-00009418"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}