DOJ-OGR-00021555.jpg

20 a1 22 23 24 25 Case 22-1426, Document ON 379 3536039, Page125 of 217 Me6eSQmaxl Carolyn credibly testit much when s de fendant's the defendant on occasion paid her direct] probable than not by a preponderance of he brought control of household and Carol Virginia was also paid additional girls. Paragraph 9, t Kate in thi deleted bec S paragraph. Kate is the indictm MR. aus ene « EVERD ELL: MOLES here not Your Honor, think you said paragraph 9. TH number for E COURT: [ did. 10 fied that she was paid twice as a victim of some reason. 29. I'm sorry. Thank you, friends to the massages. Based on the yn's testimony that Vr find it more the evidence that as encouragement to recruit "s an objection to the inclusion of argues that her name should be the crimes charged in I'm sorry to interrupt. Mr. overrule this objection because t I'm skipping the first Everdell. he paragraph doesn't assert that Kate was a statutory victim as we've discussed throughout that Kate w as a victim of t trial and the government didn't contend the crimes charged in the indictment, and that paragraph doesn't assert that she was. Paragraphs 30 to 38, there's objection throughout these to the characterization of the defendant having groomed Jane. I overrule these objections. think the government is right here that the objection is conflating grooming with enticement to travel for purposes of sexual contact. Jane's SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.eee (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021555