mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021035.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "209",
    "document_number": "58",
    "date": "02/28/2023",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page209 of 221\nA-409\n34\n1    With respect to the testimony of the pilots who\n2    testified, whether they -- whether an employee was paid by\n3    Maxwell or Epstein or technically reported to one, according to\n4    their job descriptions, is not the question here.  The fact\n5    that pilots based on their observation thought at one point\n6    that Kellen reported to Maxwell proves the point that she had\n7    supervisory authority over Kellen and exercised it, whether in\n8    the chain of command or on their formal employment paperwork,\n9    she was just an employee for one or the other, it makes no\n10   difference. There was an overlap here. They had different\n11   roles in the conspiracy, and the defendant had a supervisory\n12   roll over Kellen.\n13   MR. EVERDELL:  Your Honor, just to that point.  Being\n14   present does not mean that you're a supervisor.  That's way too\n15   far a stretch.  So the fact that there was testimony she was\n16   present still in the house while Kellen was making the calls\n17   and scheduling the massage appointments means nothing in terms\n18   of supervisory authority.\n19   THE COURT:  Thank you.  Other enhancements before the\n20   government's objection is to be addressed.\n21   MS. MOE:  No, your Honor.  Thank you.\n22   MR. EVERDELL:  Your Honor, I assume you don't want to\n23   hear or have any questions about the five-point enhancement for\n24   repeated and dangerous sex offenders.\n25   THE COURT:  I believe I have what I need, but as I\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021035",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 58, 02/28/2023, 3475901, Page209 of 221",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A-409",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "34\n1    With respect to the testimony of the pilots who\n2    testified, whether they -- whether an employee was paid by\n3    Maxwell or Epstein or technically reported to one, according to\n4    their job descriptions, is not the question here.  The fact\n5    that pilots based on their observation thought at one point\n6    that Kellen reported to Maxwell proves the point that she had\n7    supervisory authority over Kellen and exercised it, whether in\n8    the chain of command or on their formal employment paperwork,\n9    she was just an employee for one or the other, it makes no\n10   difference. There was an overlap here. They had different\n11   roles in the conspiracy, and the defendant had a supervisory\n12   roll over Kellen.\n13   MR. EVERDELL:  Your Honor, just to that point.  Being\n14   present does not mean that you're a supervisor.  That's way too\n15   far a stretch.  So the fact that there was testimony she was\n16   present still in the house while Kellen was making the calls\n17   and scheduling the massage appointments means nothing in terms\n18   of supervisory authority.\n19   THE COURT:  Thank you.  Other enhancements before the\n20   government's objection is to be addressed.\n21   MS. MOE:  No, your Honor.  Thank you.\n22   MR. EVERDELL:  Your Honor, I assume you don't want to\n23   hear or have any questions about the five-point enhancement for\n24   repeated and dangerous sex offenders.\n25   THE COURT:  I believe I have what I need, but as I",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. ... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021035",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Maxwell",
      "Epstein",
      "Kellen",
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "02/28/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "Case 22-1426",
      "Document 58",
      "3475901",
      "Page209 of 221",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021035"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}