{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "170 of 197",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 197 2711 LCHVMAX6\n1 abandoned living in East 69th in or about January of 1996.\n2 Then he leased it to Mr. Fisher, who was a codefendant in the\n3 case. And then the U.S. Government sought to evict Mr. Fisher.\n4 So both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Fisher were the defendants in the action.\n5\n6 There were, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, two answers filed in the case, answer to cross-claims. These are docket entry numbers 15 and 45 from that action. In the first paragraph of those two answers, Mr. Epstein admitted that in or about January 1996, he vacated the premises, the premises being East 69th Street. And then subsequent to that, other events happened.\n13 In an opinion in docket entry 46, Judge Chin issued an opinion, and he made a finding of fact that Epstein and his family continued to reside at the premises, East 69th, until January of 1996, at which time Epstein abandoned. So that is an opinion and two answers that we seek to admit under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, judicial notice.\n19 Under the terms of that, your Honor, it is, I believe, a fact that can be judicially noticed. 201(f) describes what instructions are given to the jury in the event that it is criminally noticed; and in a criminal case, the jury is to be instructed that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive. I'm not intending or offering the full documents that I just cited to your Honor, but the fact of Mr. Epstein's\n25\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\nDOJ-OGR-00014276",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 170 of 197 2711 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1 abandoned living in East 69th in or about January of 1996.\n2 Then he leased it to Mr. Fisher, who was a codefendant in the\n3 case. And then the U.S. Government sought to evict Mr. Fisher.\n4 So both Mr. Epstein and Mr. Fisher were the defendants in the action.\n5\n6 There were, on behalf of Mr. Epstein, two answers filed in the case, answer to cross-claims. These are docket entry numbers 15 and 45 from that action. In the first paragraph of those two answers, Mr. Epstein admitted that in or about January 1996, he vacated the premises, the premises being East 69th Street. And then subsequent to that, other events happened.\n13 In an opinion in docket entry 46, Judge Chin issued an opinion, and he made a finding of fact that Epstein and his family continued to reside at the premises, East 69th, until January of 1996, at which time Epstein abandoned. So that is an opinion and two answers that we seek to admit under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, judicial notice.\n19 Under the terms of that, your Honor, it is, I believe, a fact that can be judicially noticed. 201(f) describes what instructions are given to the jury in the event that it is criminally noticed; and in a criminal case, the jury is to be instructed that it may or may not accept the noticed fact as conclusive. I'm not intending or offering the full documents that I just cited to your Honor, but the fact of Mr. Epstein's",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014276",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Mr. Fisher",
      "Judge Chin"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "U.S. Government",
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [
      "East 69th Street"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "January 1996",
      "08/10/22"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "15",
      "45",
      "46",
      "201",
      "201(f)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014276"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains legal terminology and references to court proceedings. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}