{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "21",
    "document_number": "20",
    "date": "07/16/19",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 20 Filed 07/16/19 Page 21 of 24\nj782epsC kjc\n1\nMR. WEINGARTEN: The last thing we did today was refuse to answer questions. What we said at Pretrial is heaven forbid we make a mistake, and in terms of assets, we wanted to be precise. So there was no refusal. There was a request for time to supplement. That was accepted. And that's part of the reason we want to sit down and make sure we get our information correct to provide to the court.\n2\nTHE COURT: All right.\n3\nMR. WEINGARTEN: Can I make one other point?\n4\nTHE COURT: Sure.\n5\nMR. WEINGARTEN: In terms of the obstruction, I think it is such a significant part of our argument that the conduct at issue is ancient. It is from 2002 to 2005. So obviously if the defendant is a threat to obstruct justice, the court needs to take that into account. The allegations raised -- and I just read them briefly because we just got the government's letter -- relate to negotiations between the feds and the defendant. Back when the Southern District of Florida was attempting to find an appropriate remedy, there were discussions going back and forth: Can we squeeze you into this statute? And it didn't work, and it didn't work because there is no factual basis. That is the reference to the alleged obstruction. Not obstructive acts. Instead, the feds in Florida agreed to the plea to the state offense because there was no appropriate statute that covered conduct that was\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000426",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 20 Filed 07/16/19 Page 21 of 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "j782epsC kjc",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. WEINGARTEN: The last thing we did today was refuse to answer questions. What we said at Pretrial is heaven forbid we make a mistake, and in terms of assets, we wanted to be precise. So there was no refusal. There was a request for time to supplement. That was accepted. And that's part of the reason we want to sit down and make sure we get our information correct to provide to the court.\nTHE COURT: All right.\nMR. WEINGARTEN: Can I make one other point?\nTHE COURT: Sure.\nMR. WEINGARTEN: In terms of the obstruction, I think it is such a significant part of our argument that the conduct at issue is ancient. It is from 2002 to 2005. So obviously if the defendant is a threat to obstruct justice, the court needs to take that into account. The allegations raised -- and I just read them briefly because we just got the government's letter -- relate to negotiations between the feds and the defendant. Back when the Southern District of Florida was attempting to find an appropriate remedy, there were discussions going back and forth: Can we squeeze you into this statute? And it didn't work, and it didn't work because there is no factual basis. That is the reference to the alleged obstruction. Not obstructive acts. Instead, the feds in Florida agreed to the plea to the state offense because there was no appropriate statute that covered conduct that was",
      "position": "body"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000426",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. WEINGARTEN"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Southern District of Florida"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Florida"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/16/19",
      "2002",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 20",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000426"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}