{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "24",
    "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 24 of 74 24\nShe received submissions from the defense that this was essentially a local crime without the necessary interstate elements that constitute the foundation of federal prosecution.\nWe had a meeting in Washington with a number of the defense team with representatives of the criminal division and the representatives of the CEOS, the Child Exploitation Unit.\nThey recognized that their position was not squarely within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008 meeting. They recognized the arguments were novel; that some of the provisions in the NPA were novels. But they endorsed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart of the NPA.\nTHE COURT: Was there any proceeding at which their position is documented or any correspondence?\nMR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. There are submissions by the defense to the criminal division in Washington that I believe were dated in March. And then there was a response in May which in essence authorized --\nTHE COURT: May of what year?\nMR. WEINBERG: May of 2008.\nTHE COURT: What did it say?\nMR. ROSSMILLER: It endorsed the exercise of discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA were unusual; that these allegations were not within the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00000534",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 36 Filed 07/24/19 Page 24 of 74 24",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "She received submissions from the defense that this was essentially a local crime without the necessary interstate elements that constitute the foundation of federal prosecution.\nWe had a meeting in Washington with a number of the defense team with representatives of the criminal division and the representatives of the CEOS, the Child Exploitation Unit.\nThey recognized that their position was not squarely within the precedence that had preceded this March 2008 meeting. They recognized the arguments were novel; that some of the provisions in the NPA were novels. But they endorsed the exercise of prosecutorial discretion that was at the heart of the NPA.\nTHE COURT: Was there any proceeding at which their position is documented or any correspondence?\nMR. WEINBERG: Yes, your Honor. There are submissions by the defense to the criminal division in Washington that I believe were dated in March. And then there was a response in May which in essence authorized --\nTHE COURT: May of what year?\nMR. WEINBERG: May of 2008.\nTHE COURT: What did it say?\nMR. ROSSMILLER: It endorsed the exercise of discretion after recognizing in about a six- or seven-page letter that the facts and circumstances surrounding the NPA were unusual; that these allegations were not within the",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00000534",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. WEINBERG",
      "MR. ROSSMILLER"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "CEOS",
      "Child Exploitation Unit"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Washington"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "March 2008",
      "May 2008",
      "07/24/19"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:19-cr-00490-RMB",
      "Document 36",
      "DOJ-OGR-00000534"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}