mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES001/DOJ-OGR-00001942.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "65",
    "document_number": "93",
    "date": "12/10/20",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 65 of 91\nk7e2MaxC kjc\n1 litigation before your Honor about what is in the NPA, and the government, we expect, is going to take the position that unlike '07 is covered and nothing else. We disagree with that, which we will lay out for your Honor. What do they do? They decide we will reach back and indict '94 to '97, totally tactical, your Honor. So now we have a case where the conduct is 25 years old, no tapes, no video, none of the sort of things you would expect in that age of case, that we are going to have to defend, and we are going to defend. And I think it goes to the court's consideration of the weight in the context of the only application that's before your Honor, which is how to weigh the 3142 factors with the structure of the statute, with the guidance of the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, which is in favor of bail, in favor of bail on appropriate conditions.\n\nSo we submit that the package we laid out for the court is sufficient that we are certainly willing if the court deems it necessary to leave the proceeding open and we think we could be back before the court within a week if that is what the court wants or there is more detail which has been hammered by the fact that our client has been, by design, by design, kept in custody. And let me just give your Honor a little flavor.\n\nTHE COURT: Wait, Mr. Cohen. I missed that last point could you repeat it, please.\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00001942",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 93 Filed 12/10/20 Page 65 of 91",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "k7e2MaxC kjc\n1 litigation before your Honor about what is in the NPA, and the government, we expect, is going to take the position that unlike '07 is covered and nothing else. We disagree with that, which we will lay out for your Honor. What do they do? They decide we will reach back and indict '94 to '97, totally tactical, your Honor. So now we have a case where the conduct is 25 years old, no tapes, no video, none of the sort of things you would expect in that age of case, that we are going to have to defend, and we are going to defend. And I think it goes to the court's consideration of the weight in the context of the only application that's before your Honor, which is how to weigh the 3142 factors with the structure of the statute, with the guidance of the Second Circuit and the Supreme Court, which is in favor of bail, in favor of bail on appropriate conditions.\n\nSo we submit that the package we laid out for the court is sufficient that we are certainly willing if the court deems it necessary to leave the proceeding open and we think we could be back before the court within a week if that is what the court wants or there is more detail which has been hammered by the fact that our client has been, by design, by design, kept in custody. And let me just give your Honor a little flavor.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "THE COURT: Wait, Mr. Cohen. I missed that last point could you repeat it, please.",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00001942",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Cohen"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
      "Second Circuit",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "'07",
      "'94",
      "'97",
      "12/10/20"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-AJN",
      "Document 93",
      "3142",
      "DOJ-OGR-00001942"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}