DOJ-OGR-00016948.jpg

be N Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO WO a oO = be N Ww = Hs Oo a OY a ~] a oO a Ke) 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 765 Filed 08/10/22 Page 22 of 95 T1MAX1 LC authority if are proper nouns in the "to wit" clauses does not government is bound by them as elements of as the government is proceeding on the essential elements of the crime as charged by the grand jury. the Court would like -- And I that the fact that there mean the the offense, as long think there's no suggestion -- it's quite clear that the government has been trying need to include words or dispute was in the parties' think, where a particular coun otherwise restating and th think here, Jane "Jane ,* the o nses in the indictment and there's no to prov TH | COURT: as appropriate, like Yes, "travel from Flori including th t applies on factually in th to avoid any suggestion of lements for an Mr. individual? government thinks line 11, it be wha would create a t the defense would MR. ROHRBACH: says it fine with adding "sol conspiracy instruction. ach of relates problem when the the charge is factua a varia agree with that. proposed charge, e name of ly to them, e explanat da to New York," nee. Obviously this bal anced I and I the individual but not the counts ion of 1 points t So © be proved. Rohrbach, you didn't disagree with substituting Well, that just creates th th fine as it is because, in to Jane, and the government would ely to Jane," or "relates," if that's like. I do think adding Jane in line 6 it's later incorporated by the THE COURT: Okay. agree with that. SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P. (212%) 805-0220 And that's the 2760 DOJ-OGR-00016948