mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES004/DOJ-OGR-00011535.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "16",
    "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 16 of 101 16 M6SQmax1 in the abuse of these individuals. Paragraph 82, the objection is to the assertion that the records recovered from the Palm Beach residence during the 2005 search reveal that additional minors provided Epstein with sexualized messages between 2001 and 2004. Again, I overrule the objection. The trial record including message pads, phone book entries, and testimony of witnesses establishes by a preponderance that the information contained in this paragraph is accurate. Paragraph 83, so there was a revision here. I'm not sure if there is a continuing objection, Mr. Everdell. The previous objection was to the assertion that the defendant is responsible for the victimization of untold number of other victims. The probation department adopted the government's suggestion, revised the paragraph to assert that the defendant is responsible for the victimization of additional minor victims. To the extent there is a continuing objection, I overrule it for the reasons stated regarding paragraphs 27 and 28. Paragraph 85 is an objection to the inclusion of Kate's victim impact statement and her status under the CVRA. We have litigated the question of Kate's ability to make a statement here. I believe that defense's ultimate position was that with the requested redactions, there were no objections to her making a statement. Do I have that right? SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011535",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 737 Filed 07/22/22 Page 16 of 101 16",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1 in the abuse of these individuals. Paragraph 82, the objection is to the assertion that the records recovered from the Palm Beach residence during the 2005 search reveal that additional minors provided Epstein with sexualized messages between 2001 and 2004. Again, I overrule the objection. The trial record including message pads, phone book entries, and testimony of witnesses establishes by a preponderance that the information contained in this paragraph is accurate. Paragraph 83, so there was a revision here. I'm not sure if there is a continuing objection, Mr. Everdell. The previous objection was to the assertion that the defendant is responsible for the victimization of untold number of other victims. The probation department adopted the government's suggestion, revised the paragraph to assert that the defendant is responsible for the victimization of additional minor victims. To the extent there is a continuing objection, I overrule it for the reasons stated regarding paragraphs 27 and 28. Paragraph 85 is an objection to the inclusion of Kate's victim impact statement and her status under the CVRA. We have litigated the question of Kate's ability to make a statement here. I believe that defense's ultimate position was that with the requested redactions, there were no objections to her making a statement. Do I have that right?",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00011535",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Epstein",
      "Mr. Everdell",
      "Kate"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "07/22/22",
      "2001",
      "2004",
      "2005"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "737",
      "DOJ-OGR-00011535"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document related to a case involving Jeffrey Epstein. The text is typed, and there are no visible handwritten notes or stamps. The document includes a header with case information and a footer with the name and contact information of the court reporters."
}