mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011529.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "10",
    "document_number": "737",
    "date": "07/22/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 10 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n\n1 Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as\n2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the\n3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that\n4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more\n5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that\n6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit\n7 additional girls.\n8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of\n9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be\n10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in\n11 the indictment.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I\n13 think you said paragraph 9.\n14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first\n15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.\n16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph\n17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've\n18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend\n19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,\n20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.\n21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout\n22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed\n23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is\n24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with\n25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011529",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 10 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 Carolyn credibly testified that she was paid twice as\n2 much when she brought friends to the massages. Based on the\n3 defendant's control of household and Carolyn's testimony that\n4 the defendant on occasion paid her directly, I find it more\n5 probable than not by a preponderance of the evidence that\n6 Virginia was also paid more as encouragement to recruit\n7 additional girls.\n8 Paragraph 9, there's an objection to the inclusion of\n9 Kate in this paragraph. It argues that her name should be\n10 deleted because Kate is not a victim of the crimes charged in\n11 the indictment.\n12 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I'm sorry to interrupt. I\n13 think you said paragraph 9.\n14 THE COURT: I did. I'm sorry. I'm skipping the first\n15 number for some reason. 29. Thank you, Mr. Everdell.\n16 I overrule this objection because the paragraph\n17 doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've\n18 discussed throughout trial and the government didn't contend\n19 that Kate was a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment,\n20 and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was.\n21 Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout\n22 these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed\n23 Jane. I overrule these objections. I think the government is\n24 right here that the objection is conflating grooming with\n25 enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011529",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "Virginia",
      "Kate",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Jane"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011529"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}