mirror of
https://github.com/epstein-docs/epstein-docs.github.io.git
synced 2025-12-10 04:01:31 -06:00
51 lines
4.1 KiB
JSON
51 lines
4.1 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"document_metadata": {
|
|
"page_number": "301",
|
|
"document_number": "A-5758",
|
|
"date": null,
|
|
"document_type": "court transcript",
|
|
"has_handwriting": false,
|
|
"has_stamps": false
|
|
},
|
|
"full_text": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct\n1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. You knew that at the time you filed the brief?\n3 A. I believed it to be so. My basis for that is when I called\n4 the other lawyers in the case to let them know what our several\n5 days of investigating in the wake of the letter made us believe\n6 could be true -- we still weren't sure but we were getting a\n7 lot surer -- they all expressed complete surprise. Based on\n8 that, I believed that we were somewhat differently situated.\n9 Although, as I think you know, we were surprised.\n10 Q. You could have filed a separate brief, correct?\n11 A. We could have, yes.\n12 Q. With an accurate statement of the facts, correct?\n13 A. We certainly could have filed a separate brief. As it\n14 turned out, because the resources were different, we took by\n15 far the laboring oar with the brief.\n16 Q. Isn't it true that on that July 22nd call you said\n17 essentially, and I can bring up the transcript if you would\n18 like to see it, that you intended to lay out the facts as it\n19 related to waiver essentially when and if the government asked?\n20 A. That is pretty much what I said. I certainly thought it\n21 was the case that the government might well raise the waiver\n22 issue. As I said, I kind of missed where this was all going.\n23 But I certainly thought the government was likely going to\n24 inquire did we know. I didn't know and I don't believe anyone\n25 else at our firm did, so I certainly planned to answer the\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00010041",
|
|
"text_blocks": [
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "C2grdau2 Brune - direct",
|
|
"position": "header"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "1 A. Yes.\n2 Q. You knew that at the time you filed the brief?\n3 A. I believed it to be so. My basis for that is when I called\n4 the other lawyers in the case to let them know what our several\n5 days of investigating in the wake of the letter made us believe\n6 could be true -- we still weren't sure but we were getting a\n7 lot surer -- they all expressed complete surprise. Based on\n8 that, I believed that we were somewhat differently situated.\n9 Although, as I think you know, we were surprised.\n10 Q. You could have filed a separate brief, correct?\n11 A. We could have, yes.\n12 Q. With an accurate statement of the facts, correct?\n13 A. We certainly could have filed a separate brief. As it\n14 turned out, because the resources were different, we took by\n15 far the laboring oar with the brief.\n16 Q. Isn't it true that on that July 22nd call you said\n17 essentially, and I can bring up the transcript if you would\n18 like to see it, that you intended to lay out the facts as it\n19 related to waiver essentially when and if the government asked?\n20 A. That is pretty much what I said. I certainly thought it\n21 was the case that the government might well raise the waiver\n22 issue. As I said, I kind of missed where this was all going.\n23 But I certainly thought the government was likely going to\n24 inquire did we know. I didn't know and I don't believe anyone\n25 else at our firm did, so I certainly planned to answer the",
|
|
"position": "main"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.\n(212) 805-0300",
|
|
"position": "footer"
|
|
},
|
|
{
|
|
"type": "printed",
|
|
"content": "DOJ-OGR-00010041",
|
|
"position": "footer"
|
|
}
|
|
],
|
|
"entities": {
|
|
"people": [
|
|
"Brune"
|
|
],
|
|
"organizations": [
|
|
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.",
|
|
"DOJ"
|
|
],
|
|
"locations": [],
|
|
"dates": [
|
|
"July 22nd"
|
|
],
|
|
"reference_numbers": [
|
|
"A-5758",
|
|
"DOJ-OGR-00010041"
|
|
]
|
|
},
|
|
"additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript page. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The content is a Q&A session between a lawyer and a witness named Brune. The page number is 301, and the document number is A-5758."
|
|
} |