mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00014773.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "26",
    "document_number": "779",
    "date": "08/22/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 26 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n1 with the point, which is we're focusing on the record evidence.\n2 The conspiracy as charged requires there be to be a minor involved. Carolyn is not a minor in 2005. Her birthday is January -- I don't know if I can say that, I'm sorry, but you understand it's at the beginning.\n3\n4 THE COURT: It's early.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: It's early. So as of 2005, she is not a minor any more. So if we're looking to the end date of the conspiracy that's charged in the indictment, that does not exist in 2005, and Carolyn is not a minor in 2005, that evidence can't be used to support the end date of the conspiracy that is charged.\n6\n7 So what we're really talking about is one message pad that is undated, unverified, and not even in evidence. It's not even properly authenticated. I would also point out -- it's not reliable, your Honor. But I would also point out that I think we did have testimony that there were multiple message pads going on at any one time. The surrounding message pads are not a perfect indicator of when that message would have been taken if it's undated. It could have been weeks, months afterwards that someone decided to use that message pad to take that message instead of another of message pad that was ongoing at the same time. So there is no reliable credible evidence that's the date of that message pad.\n8\n9 And so, your Honor, we cited a number of cases in our\n10 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014773",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 26 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 with the point, which is we're focusing on the record evidence.\n2 The conspiracy as charged requires there be to be a minor involved. Carolyn is not a minor in 2005. Her birthday is January -- I don't know if I can say that, I'm sorry, but you understand it's at the beginning.\n3\n4 THE COURT: It's early.\n5 MR. EVERDELL: It's early. So as of 2005, she is not a minor any more. So if we're looking to the end date of the conspiracy that's charged in the indictment, that does not exist in 2005, and Carolyn is not a minor in 2005, that evidence can't be used to support the end date of the conspiracy that is charged.\n6\n7 So what we're really talking about is one message pad that is undated, unverified, and not even in evidence. It's not even properly authenticated. I would also point out -- it's not reliable, your Honor. But I would also point out that I think we did have testimony that there were multiple message pads going on at any one time. The surrounding message pads are not a perfect indicator of when that message would have been taken if it's undated. It could have been weeks, months afterwards that someone decided to use that message pad to take that message instead of another of message pad that was ongoing at the same time. So there is no reliable credible evidence that's the date of that message pad.\n8\n9 And so, your Honor, we cited a number of cases in our",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014773",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Carolyn",
      "MR. EVERDELL"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "January",
      "2005",
      "08/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "779",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014773"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}