DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
524 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
1
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
3
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
524 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from a proceeding on August 10, 2022, identified as Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. It captures a legal argument between attorneys Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim before a judge. The judge overrules a relevance objection made by Ms. Sternheim regarding evidence or a case mentioned by Mr. Rohrbach, but allows her to state the objection for the record.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| MR. ROHRBACH | Attorney |
Speaking to the court, arguing a point about a 'fireable offense' and offering an exhibit.
|
| THE COURT | Judge |
Presiding over the proceeding, responding to attorneys, and making rulings on objections.
|
| MS. STERNHEIM | Attorney |
Speaking to the court, making an objection and asking to state it for the record.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
A title used by Mr. Rohrbach and Ms. Sternheim to address the judge (THE COURT).
|
Organizations (1)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting service that created the document.
|
Timeline (1 events)
2022-08-10
A discussion in court where Mr. Rohrbach argues a point about a fireable offense and offers an exhibit. The Court overrules a relevance objection from Ms. Sternheim, who then asks to state her objection for the record.
Courtroom (implied)
Relationships (3)
Mr. Rohrbach addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and presents legal arguments and evidence to the court.
Ms. Sternheim addresses the judge as 'Your Honor' and makes a legal objection during the proceedings.
Both are attorneys participating in the same court proceeding, with one (Mr. Rohrbach) offering evidence and the other (Ms. Sternheim) objecting to it, suggesting they are opposing counsel.
Key Quotes (3)
"I think that would be the source of the obligation is that they would be a fireable offense against the company to be fraudulently obtaining insurance benefits for someone."Source
— MR. ROHRBACH
(Arguing a point to the Court regarding an obligation.)
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
Quote #1
"To the extent there was a relevance objection, I'll overrule the relevance objection."Source
— THE COURT
(Making a ruling on an objection.)
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
Quote #2
"Oh, yes, you can object and I'll overrule."Source
— THE COURT
(Responding to Ms. Sternheim's request to state her objection for the record after the ruling was made.)
DOJ-OGR-00013304.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,273 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 755 Filed 08/10/22 Page 26 of 262 1731
LC8VMAX2
LC8VMAX2
1 fired if they don't.
2 MR. ROHRBACH: I think that would be the source of the
3 obligation is that they would be a fireable offense against the
4 company to be fraudulently obtaining insurance benefits for
5 someone. But if the Court is not persuaded --
6 THE COURT: I don't always find a case on point.
7 You're right, there's a basis to distinguish, but it's pretty
8 directly on point; so I think it shows it would be hearsay in
9 the absence of some verification or some nontruth basis for
10 which you're offering.
11 MR. ROHRBACH: Then I think the government will just
12 offer the other exhibit, your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay. 823.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: 823.
15 THE COURT: To the extent there was a relevance
16 objection, I'll overrule the relevance objection.
17 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, may I state it for the
18 record even though I know you're ruling?
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
20 MS. STERNHEIM: I would like to state it for the -- in
21 front of the jury.
22 THE COURT: Oh, yes, you can object and I'll overrule.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: Okay.
24 THE COURT: That's fine.
25 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the case I mentioned
2 MR. ROHRBACH: I think that would be the source of the
3 obligation is that they would be a fireable offense against the
4 company to be fraudulently obtaining insurance benefits for
5 someone. But if the Court is not persuaded --
6 THE COURT: I don't always find a case on point.
7 You're right, there's a basis to distinguish, but it's pretty
8 directly on point; so I think it shows it would be hearsay in
9 the absence of some verification or some nontruth basis for
10 which you're offering.
11 MR. ROHRBACH: Then I think the government will just
12 offer the other exhibit, your Honor.
13 THE COURT: Okay. 823.
14 MR. ROHRBACH: 823.
15 THE COURT: To the extent there was a relevance
16 objection, I'll overrule the relevance objection.
17 MS. STERNHEIM: Your Honor, may I state it for the
18 record even though I know you're ruling?
19 THE COURT: I'm sorry?
20 MS. STERNHEIM: I would like to state it for the -- in
21 front of the jury.
22 THE COURT: Oh, yes, you can object and I'll overrule.
23 MS. STERNHEIM: Okay.
24 THE COURT: That's fine.
25 MR. ROHRBACH: Your Honor, the case I mentioned
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00013304
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document