{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "47",
    "document_number": "36",
    "date": "07/24/19",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 47 of 74 47\nconstitute the predicate of detention and the predicate --\nTHE COURT: The $250,000 and the $100,000?\nMR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.\nThe government says -- and I think they're being\ncandid in their language in the last sentence on page 11 --\nthat \"Given the timing, it suggests\" -- and I underline that\nword -- \"the defendant was attempting to further influence\ncoconspirators who might provide information.\"\nSo the government -- and I think they've been candid\ntoday -- has not confirmed the witness testimony through\ncorroboration, through any other corroborative mechanism\nwhether this was an act of generosity or an act that somehow\nwas connected to what the government suggests might have been a\nmotive.\nBut this occurring when there was no pending judicial\nproceeding and no knowledge of a pending investigation doesn't\nrise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the\npendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under\nthe Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge\nin California.\nWe just contend that even when you look backwards to\nwhether this constitutes an obstruction, the payment of an\nemployee or the payment of a friend is simply not witness\ntampering because the Miami Herald ran an article.\nIt simply doesn't rise to the level of a past crime\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000557",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 47 of 74 47",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "constitute the predicate of detention and the predicate --\nTHE COURT: The $250,000 and the $100,000?\nMR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor.\nThe government says -- and I think they're being\ncandid in their language in the last sentence on page 11 --\nthat \"Given the timing, it suggests\" -- and I underline that\nword -- \"the defendant was attempting to further influence\ncoconspirators who might provide information.\"\nSo the government -- and I think they've been candid\ntoday -- has not confirmed the witness testimony through\ncorroboration, through any other corroborative mechanism\nwhether this was an act of generosity or an act that somehow\nwas connected to what the government suggests might have been a\nmotive.\nBut this occurring when there was no pending judicial\nproceeding and no knowledge of a pending investigation doesn't\nrise to the level of a federal obstruction which requires the\npendency or the foreseeability of a federal investigation under\nthe Supreme Court's decision in Aguilar, A-g-u-i-l-a-r, a judge\nin California.\nWe just contend that even when you look backwards to\nwhether this constitutes an obstruction, the payment of an\nemployee or the payment of a friend is simply not witness\ntampering because the Miami Herald ran an article.\nIt simply doesn't rise to the level of a past crime",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000557",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. WEINBERG"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Miami Herald",
      "THE COURT",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "California"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/24/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "36",
      "47",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000557"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}