mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES008/DOJ-OGR-00021569.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "139",
    "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, Page139 of 217\nSA-393\n\nM6SQmax1 24\n1 that it certainly was. The message pads show that Carolyn was\n2 still going to the house. Her testimony establishes that she\n3 was still going to the house throughout that time period. We\n4 do not agree that we're required to show that any conspirator\n5 took a specific act in that exact window but just that the\n6 conspiracy was still live, and the fact that there were\n7 additional acts ratifying membership of the conspiracy\n8 throughout 2004 and into 2005 satisfies that burden.\n9 THE COURT: Again, just to make sure I'm not missing\n10 anything you want to point to, the into 2005 is pointing to\n11 post conspiracy conduct.\n12 MS. MOE: Post indictment conduct, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Post indictment. Is it in some way not\n14 post conspiracy?\n15 MS. MOE: Well, your Honor, again, the question before\n16 the Court, according to the application is when the did offense\n17 end.\n18 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, I do understand you're framing\n19 that question. I'm asking record evidence question. Is there\n20 something you're pointing to for your statement, the post 2005\n21 which consists of conspiratorial conduct?\n22 MS. MOE: I think separate from the 2005 evidence, we\n23 would point to in the fall of 2004, a message from Carolyn in\n24 November of 2004 showing that she was contacting the house to\n25 make a scheduled appointment.\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00021569",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 22-1426, Document 78, 06/29/2023, 3536039, Page139 of 217",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SA-393",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 24",
      "position": "margin"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 that it certainly was. The message pads show that Carolyn was\n2 still going to the house. Her testimony establishes that she\n3 was still going to the house throughout that time period. We\n4 do not agree that we're required to show that any conspirator\n5 took a specific act in that exact window but just that the\n6 conspiracy was still live, and the fact that there were\n7 additional acts ratifying membership of the conspiracy\n8 throughout 2004 and into 2005 satisfies that burden.\n9 THE COURT: Again, just to make sure I'm not missing\n10 anything you want to point to, the into 2005 is pointing to\n11 post conspiracy conduct.\n12 MS. MOE: Post indictment conduct, your Honor.\n13 THE COURT: Post indictment. Is it in some way not\n14 post conspiracy?\n15 MS. MOE: Well, your Honor, again, the question before\n16 the Court, according to the application is when the did offense\n17 end.\n18 THE COURT: Ms. Moe, I do understand you're framing\n19 that question. I'm asking record evidence question. Is there\n20 something you're pointing to for your statement, the post 2005\n21 which consists of conspiratorial conduct?\n22 MS. MOE: I think separate from the 2005 evidence, we\n23 would point to in the fall of 2004, a message from Carolyn in\n24 November of 2004 showing that she was contacting the house to\n25 make a scheduled appointment.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C... (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00021569",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Ms. Moe"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "DOJ"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "06/29/2023",
      "2004",
      "2005",
      "November 2004"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "22-1426",
      "78",
      "3536039",
      "DOJ-OGR-00021569"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}