{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "11",
    "document_number": "20-cr-00330",
    "date": null,
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant's assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant's and her spouse's assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17.\n\nThe monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant's bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. D at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant's total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court's weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.\n\nIf the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).\n\n11\nDOJ-OGR-00000874",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "concerns about whether the full extent of the Defendant's assets have been disclosed in light of the lack of transparency when she was first arrested. But the Court assumes, for purposes of resolving this motion, that the financial report that it reviewed in December is accurate and that it accounts for all of the Defendant's and her spouse's assets. See Dec. Op. at 16–17.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The monitorship condition does not reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, even when viewed in combination with the rest of the Defendant's bail package. The Defendant would continue to have access to substantial assets—certainly enough to enable her flight and to evade prosecution. These include the $450,000 that the Defendant would retain for living expenses and any future salaries for her or her spouse, along with other assets, including jewelry and other chattels, that are potentially worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. See Def. Mot. at 5–6; see also Dkt. 97, Ex. D at 9. While those amounts may be a small percentage of the Defendant's total assets, they represent a still-substantial amount that could easily facilitate flight. When combined with the Court's weighing of the § 3142(g) factors and the presumption of detention, the Court concludes that the proposed restraints are insufficient to alter its conclusion that no combination of conditions can reasonably assure her appearance.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "If the Court could conclude that any set of conditions could reasonably assure the Defendant's future appearance, it would order her release. Yet while her proposed bail package is substantial, it cannot provide such reasonable assurances. As a result, the Court again determines that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the appearance of” the Defendant, and it denies her motion for bail on this basis. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(1).",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "11",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000874",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Defendant"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "December"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "20-cr-00330",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000874",
      "$450,000",
      "§ 3142(g)",
      "§ 3142(e)(1)"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case, discussing the defendant's bail and asset disclosure. The text is well-formatted and legible."
}