mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021562.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "132",
    "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, Page132 of 217\nSA-386\n\nM6SQmax1\n17\n1    MR. EVERDELL: That's correct, your Honor.\n2    THE COURT: So I did reject the request for redactions\n3 for the reasons explained in my order. And as I explained in\n4 overruling the objection to paragraphs 39 to 45, Kate's\n5 testimony and her statement are relevant to sentencing which\n6 I've indicated she may give. And with that, there's objections\n7 pertaining to fine and assets and the like. I think we can\n8 turn to those when we get to the fine. Mr. Everdell, okay with\n9 that?\n10    MR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. So we'll delay the\n11 offense level calculation objections and the ones related to\n12 the financial penalties for now?\n13    THE COURT: Yes, precisely, and we'll pick those up.\n14 I think otherwise that's it for what I understand to be\n15 continuing objections after probation responded to your\n16 requests and assertions. Agree with that, Mr. Everdell?\n17    MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the only one that I would\n18 highlight is there was an objection, I believe it's framed\n19 according to paragraph 173, which deals with the financial\n20 penalties. The government made in their response some\n21 representations that we take issue with, but if you're planning\n22 on covering that later, we can reserve that till later because\n23 it does deal with the financial penalties.\n24    THE COURT: Yes, I have objections to 172, 178, 192\n25 and 193.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00021562",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page132 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-386",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1\n17",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "MR. EVERDELL: That's correct, your Honor.\nTHE COURT: So I did reject the request for redactions\nfor the reasons explained in my order. And as I explained in\noverruling the objection to paragraphs 39 to 45, Kate's\ntestimony and her statement are relevant to sentencing which\nI've indicated she may give. And with that, there's objections\npertaining to fine and assets and the like. I think we can\nturn to those when we get to the fine. Mr. Everdell, okay with\nthat?\nMR. EVERDELL: Yes, your Honor. So we'll delay the\noffense level calculation objections and the ones related to\nthe financial penalties for now?\nTHE COURT: Yes, precisely, and we'll pick those up.\nI think otherwise that's it for what I understand to be\ncontinuing objections after probation responded to your\nrequests and assertions. Agree with that, Mr. Everdell?\nMR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, the only one that I would\nhighlight is there was an objection, I believe it's framed\naccording to paragraph 173, which deals with the financial\npenalties. The government made in their response some\nrepresentations that we take issue with, but if you're planning\non covering that later, we can reserve that till later because\nit does deal with the financial penalties.\nTHE COURT: Yes, I have objections to 172, 178, 192\nand 193.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021562",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Kate"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "132",
      "217",
      "SA-386",
      "39",
      "45",
      "173",
      "172",
      "178",
      "192",
      "193",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021562"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage to the document."
}