mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021555.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "125",
    "document_number": "78",
    "date": "06/29/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page125 of 217\nSA-379\n\nM6SQmax1\n10\n1\nCarolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit additional girls.\n\nParagraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think you said paragraph 9.\n\nTHE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.\n\nI overrule this objection because the paragraph doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.\n\nParagraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is right here that the objection is conflating grooming with enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021555",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page125 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-379",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n10\n1\nCarolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit additional girls.\n\nParagraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment.\n\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I think you said paragraph 9.\n\nTHE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.\n\nI overrule this objection because the paragraph doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment, and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.\n\nParagraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is right here that the objection is conflating grooming with enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021555",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Virginia",
      "Kate",
      "Jane",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 78",
      "3536039",
      "SA-379",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021555"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}