{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "18",
    "date": "07/16/19",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case #19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 9 of 18\n1 That is in spite of the fact that the Southern\n2 District is not bound, is not a signatory to, and otherwise has\n3 no connection to the NPA. And there is no evidence that we have\n4 come across that the Southern District of New York was\n5 consulted, asked, involved, notified as far as we have seen.\n6 For those reasons and others I'm sure we will brief,\n7 we don't think the NPA applies to us.\n8 MR. WEINBERG: If I may reply briefly, your Honor?\n9 THE COURT: Yes.\n10 MR. WEINBERG: I have been one of Mr. Epstein's\n11 counsel through the CVRA litigation which started in 2008 and\n12 continues. In fact, our briefing is today. The NPA provided\n13 him with immunity for any offenses arising from a joint\n14 FBI/grand jury/U.S. Attorney investigation that led to a\n15 decision by Mr. Epstein to plead to a higher state offense than\n16 the state prosecutors contemplated. He went to jail, signed an\n17 agreement, and has lived up to its terms 100 percent.\n18 We have seen in the paperwork of the CVRA, in the\n19 Southern District of Florida, in writing at docket 205-2 the\n20 government's motion to dismiss CVRA, urging that the witnesses\n21 there go to the Southern District of New York and essentially\n22 try to motivate them to prosecute for the very same conduct, in\n23 other words, the conduct that Mr. Epstein was immunized,\n24 including travel between two states, telephonic communications\n25 between two states. Florida immunized him for the same travel\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000395",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case #19-cr-00490-RMB Document 18 Filed 07/16/19 Page 9 of 18",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 That is in spite of the fact that the Southern\n2 District is not bound, is not a signatory to, and otherwise has\n3 no connection to the NPA. And there is no evidence that we have\n4 come across that the Southern District of New York was\n5 consulted, asked, involved, notified as far as we have seen.\n6 For those reasons and others I'm sure we will brief,\n7 we don't think the NPA applies to us.\n8 MR. WEINBERG: If I may reply briefly, your Honor?\n9 THE COURT: Yes.\n10 MR. WEINBERG: I have been one of Mr. Epstein's\n11 counsel through the CVRA litigation which started in 2008 and\n12 continues. In fact, our briefing is today. The NPA provided\n13 him with immunity for any offenses arising from a joint\n14 FBI/grand jury/U.S. Attorney investigation that led to a\n15 decision by Mr. Epstein to plead to a higher state offense than\n16 the state prosecutors contemplated. He went to jail, signed an\n17 agreement, and has lived up to its terms 100 percent.\n18 We have seen in the paperwork of the CVRA, in the\n19 Southern District of Florida, in writing at docket 205-2 the\n20 government's motion to dismiss CVRA, urging that the witnesses\n21 there go to the Southern District of New York and essentially\n22 try to motivate them to prosecute for the very same conduct, in\n23 other words, the conduct that Mr. Epstein was immunized,\n24 including travel between two states, telephonic communications\n25 between two states. Florida immunized him for the same travel",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000395",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Weinberg"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "FBI",
      "U.S. Attorney",
      "Southern District Reporters, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Southern District of New York",
      "Florida",
      "New York"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/16/19",
      "2008"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "#19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 18",
      "docket 205-2",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000395"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with clear and legible text. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}