{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "9",
    "document_number": "761",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 246 2304 LCGVMAX1\n1 could, the cover letter. Do we know why it's dated 2010?\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think that's a separate\n3 record. Because I think that record reflects that there was an\n4 opportunity to purchase the leasehold outright in 2010. It's a\n5 little bit of a complicated title. It's actually a leasehold.\n6 She does own the lease; it's effectively owning it, but this\n7 land, I think, has been in the possession of the Duke of\n8 Westminster since, you know, 1500. It's a very complicated\n9 chain of title in the UK.\n10 But the way it works is you pass the leasehold from\n11 one person to another. And that is effective ownership under\n12 the land registry records. And that leasehold passed in -- the\n13 contracts were exchanged in '96, and the deal closed in '97, in\n14 January '97; and it was registered in a land registry as a\n15 transfer of that title in March of '97.\n16 THE COURT: And again, my question is not that it's to\n17 prove when Ms. Maxwell purchased the home, but the defense's\n18 proffer from counsel is that it is to prove that she did not\n19 live there before 1996?\n20 MR. EVERDELL: That's right. We have a witness, Kate,\n21 who says -- she didn't live there before 1997, because that's\n22 when she actually took possession of the property, right.\n23 We have a witness, Kate, who has testified to events\n24 that allegedly took place in the Kinnerton Street property in\n25 '94 and '95. And these records show that she didn't own that\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00016492",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 761 Filed 08/10/22 Page 9 of 246 2304 LCGVMAX1",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00016492",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 could, the cover letter. Do we know why it's dated 2010?\n2 MR. EVERDELL: Your Honor, I think that's a separate\n3 record. Because I think that record reflects that there was an\n4 opportunity to purchase the leasehold outright in 2010. It's a\n5 little bit of a complicated title. It's actually a leasehold.\n6 She does own the lease; it's effectively owning it, but this\n7 land, I think, has been in the possession of the Duke of\n8 Westminster since, you know, 1500. It's a very complicated\n9 chain of title in the UK.\n10 But the way it works is you pass the leasehold from\n11 one person to another. And that is effective ownership under\n12 the land registry records. And that leasehold passed in -- the\n13 contracts were exchanged in '96, and the deal closed in '97, in\n14 January '97; and it was registered in a land registry as a\n15 transfer of that title in March of '97.\n16 THE COURT: And again, my question is not that it's to\n17 prove when Ms. Maxwell purchased the home, but the defense's\n18 proffer from counsel is that it is to prove that she did not\n19 live there before 1996?\n20 MR. EVERDELL: That's right. We have a witness, Kate,\n21 who says -- she didn't live there before 1997, because that's\n22 when she actually took possession of the property, right.\n23 We have a witness, Kate, who has testified to events\n24 that allegedly took place in the Kinnerton Street property in\n25 '94 and '95. And these records show that she didn't own that",
      "position": "main"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MR. EVERDELL",
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Kate",
      "Duke of Westminster"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "UK",
      "Kinnerton Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "2010",
      "1996",
      "1997",
      "January '97",
      "March of '97",
      "1994",
      "1995"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "761",
      "DOJ-OGR-00016492"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and readable format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}