mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES007/DOJ-OGR-00018812.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "214",
    "document_number": "753",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 264 1655 LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross 1 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. 2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But 3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is 4 not inconsistent. 5 What else? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with 7 regard to Sarah Kellen. 8 THE COURT: 207. 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208. 10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of 12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs 13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by 14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of 15 these paragraphs. 16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is 17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph 18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed 19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll 20 sustain on 207. 21 Is there something different in 208? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. 23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too. 24 What else? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00018812",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 753 Filed 08/10/22 Page 214 of 264 1655",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "LC7VMAX7 Carolyn - cross",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 THE COURT: Okay. Sustained. 2 I think if it said the last incident, then fine. But 3 otherwise you can ask the question. The paragraph itself is 4 not inconsistent. 5 What else? 6 MR. PAGLIUCA: Well, I'm offering 207 and 208 with 7 regard to Sarah Kellen. 8 THE COURT: 207. 9 MR. PAGLIUCA: 207 and 208. 10 THE COURT: What's the inconsistency in 207? 11 MR. PAGLIUCA: Again, these are -- well, as to all of 12 these, I'll just make this argument as to all of the paragraphs 13 that the Court sustained. I view these as impeachment by 14 omission because Ms. Maxwell's name does not appear in any of 15 these paragraphs. 16 THE COURT: Right. So this is why this one is 17 different than the last document, which is because of paragraph 18 206 and paragraph 12, which expressly reference other unnamed 19 individual employees and assistants. So on that ground I'll 20 sustain on 207. 21 Is there something different in 208? 22 MR. PAGLIUCA: No. 23 THE COURT: Okay. So sustained on that ground, too. 24 What else? 25 MR. PAGLIUCA: The interrogatory responses, your",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00018812",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Sarah Kellen",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "MR. PAGLIUCA"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "753",
      "207",
      "208",
      "206",
      "12",
      "DOJ-OGR-00018812"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion between the court and MR. PAGLIUCA regarding the admissibility of certain documents (207 and 208) related to Sarah Kellen. The court sustains the objection to the documents due to inconsistency and impeachment by omission. The transcript is well-formatted and clear, with no visible redactions or damage."
}