mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00013296.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18",
    "document_number": "755",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 262 1723 LC8Cmax1 insurance or accepting the offer of insurance in and of itself may be a perk of the business, but putting on the form who you wish to be insured as your family is hearsay. THE COURT: Agreed. MS. STERNHEIM: So the form itself is one thing, the content is something else THE COURT: I agree. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. THE COURT: I think the only potential for -- and you'll look at the Lieberman case, too, is if there is testimony that the employer did something to verify the information on the form. So, for example, if the form says this is my address and the testimony is that when an employee fills out this form, we look at their driver's license to verify that the address is the same, then, as a business, I think, under Lieberman, that comes in. It would have to be something comparable for verification of children -- I think it's children and spouse? MS. STERNHEIM: Correct. THE COURT: In order for this to fit for the content of the form. It's content versus the form itself. It's precisely the line that the circuit draws in Lieberman. MS. STERNHEIM: But in addition, Judge, this witness does not have any personal knowledge as to what the procedures were seven years prior to her becoming employed. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00013296",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 18 of 262 1723 LC8Cmax1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "insurance or accepting the offer of insurance in and of itself may be a perk of the business, but putting on the form who you wish to be insured as your family is hearsay. THE COURT: Agreed. MS. STERNHEIM: So the form itself is one thing, the content is something else THE COURT: I agree. MS. STERNHEIM: Thank you. THE COURT: I think the only potential for -- and you'll look at the Lieberman case, too, is if there is testimony that the employer did something to verify the information on the form. So, for example, if the form says this is my address and the testimony is that when an employee fills out this form, we look at their driver's license to verify that the address is the same, then, as a business, I think, under Lieberman, that comes in. It would have to be something comparable for verification of children -- I think it's children and spouse? MS. STERNHEIM: Correct. THE COURT: In order for this to fit for the content of the form. It's content versus the form itself. It's precisely the line that the circuit draws in Lieberman. MS. STERNHEIM: But in addition, Judge, this witness does not have any personal knowledge as to what the procedures were seven years prior to her becoming employed.",
      "position": "main"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00013296",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. STERNHEIM"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "755",
      "DOJ-OGR-00013296"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a discussion about insurance forms and verification procedures. The text is mostly printed, with no handwritten content or stamps visible."
}