mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES006/DOJ-OGR-00014780.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "33",
    "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 33 of 101\nM6SQmax1\n1 clearer, your Honor, this notion that she was somehow -- Sarah Kellen was an assistant of both Epstein and Maxwell is again belied by the trial record.\n2\n3 If you look at Larry Visoski's testimony, which I believe is what the government is relying on there, he originally testified, oh, I think she was an assistant for both. But on cross-examination, he conceded that he really didn't know what her role was, and his best recollection was that she was an assistant for Epstein.\n4\n5 And again, just look again at Cimberly Espinosa's testimony who was the actual assistant for Ms. Maxwell, and she says unequivocally, \"I was her assistant. Kellen was Epstein's assistant.\" So there is no fair inference that Ms. Maxwell was supervising Sarah Kellen. The inference is exactly the opposite, and it can't provide a basis for that leadership enhancement.\n6\n7 THE COURT: All right. Anything further on the enhancements for the government's objection?\n8\n9 MS. MOE: Your Honor, just very briefly with respect to the leadership question, I just want to direct the Court's attention, we noted this on page 27 of our brief, but the testimony at trial was that Carolyn recalled that even after Sarah Kellen took over calling to schedule massages, Maxwell was still present inside the Palm Beach residence when Carolyn arrived for massage appointments.\n10\n11 SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014780",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 779 Filed 08/22/22 Page 33 of 101",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "M6SQmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 clearer, your Honor, this notion that she was somehow -- Sarah Kellen was an assistant of both Epstein and Maxwell is again belied by the trial record.\n\nIf you look at Larry Visoski's testimony, which I believe is what the government is relying on there, he originally testified, oh, I think she was an assistant for both. But on cross-examination, he conceded that he really didn't know what her role was, and his best recollection was that she was an assistant for Epstein.\n\nAnd again, just look again at Cimberly Espinosa's testimony who was the actual assistant for Ms. Maxwell, and she says unequivocally, \"I was her assistant. Kellen was Epstein's assistant.\" So there is no fair inference that Ms. Maxwell was supervising Sarah Kellen. The inference is exactly the opposite, and it can't provide a basis for that leadership enhancement.\n\nTHE COURT: All right. Anything further on the enhancements for the government's objection?\n\nMS. MOE: Your Honor, just very briefly with respect to the leadership question, I just want to direct the Court's attention, we noted this on page 27 of our brief, but the testimony at trial was that Carolyn recalled that even after Sarah Kellen took over calling to schedule massages, Maxwell was still present inside the Palm Beach residence when Carolyn arrived for massage appointments.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014780",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Sarah Kellen",
      "Epstein",
      "Maxwell",
      "Larry Visoski",
      "Cimberly Espinosa",
      "Carolyn",
      "MS. MOE"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Palm Beach"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "08/22/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "779",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014780"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}