DOJ-OGR-00021561.jpg

20 a1 22 23 24 25 Case 22-1426, Document ON 385 3536039, Page131 of 217 Me6eSQmaxl in the abuse of Paragraph 82, the records recove 2005 search reveal tha sexualized massages bet the objection. book entries, preponderance that the inf is accurate. Paragraph 83, sure if previous objection was responsible victims. suggestion, red The trial and testimony of The probation depart is responsible for victims. To th these individuals. 16 the objection is to the assertion that from the Palm t additional Beach residence during the minors provided tween 2001 and 2004. Again, Epstein with [ overrule record including message pads, so there was there is a continuing object phone f witnesses establishes by a a revision here. I Mr. po . ion, Everdel to the asser ion that for the victimization of the victimi he ther revised the paragraph to assert tment adopted th ation of untold number of that the def Formation contained in this paragraph 'm not The the defendant is other government's additional Fendant minor it overrule 28. Paragraph 85 is an objection to the XU is a cont tinuing objection, inclusion of for the reasons stated regarding paragraphs 27 and Kate's victim impact statement and her status under the We statement here. that with th have litigated the question of I believe that def her making a state requested redactions, Fense's CVRA. F Kate's ability to make a ultimate position was there were no objections to SOUTHE ment. Do I have that right? RN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.eee (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00021561