mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014280.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "174",
    "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 174 of 197 2715 LCHVMAX6\n\nthe letter, I think, is a sort of separate matter than the summary judgment opinion and the answers. Those are ones where all we have is a summary judgment opinion. We don't know what the basis was for it. And we have some answers to cross-claims in which Mr. Epstein asserts some facts to which we don't know what the question was.\n\nAnd I suppose this brings me to the broader point which applies to the letter and Epstein deposition as well, which is that this was not a material fact in that litigation; and so there was no reason for the government to litigate when Mr. Epstein, in fact, lived in and was occupying particular residences.\n\nWhat mattered in that litigation is that at some point in early 1996, Mr. Epstein made an attempt to do an illegal sublet of the property; and so the government was suing for ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein. But it did not matter to the government whether Mr. Epstein abandoned the property in January 1996, December 1995, November 1995. There was no reason for that to be litigated in the course of that litigation. It just mattered that he abandoned the property before he tried to do the illegal sublet. That's why it's in the background section of Judge Chin's opinion; that's why it's not a significant portion of any of the other documents. There is absolutely no reason to take judicial notice of it. And actually for the same reason, it's not subject to the 804\n\nSOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300\n\nDOJ-OGR-00014280",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 174 of 197 2715 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "the letter, I think, is a sort of separate matter than the summary judgment opinion and the answers. Those are ones where all we have is a summary judgment opinion. We don't know what the basis was for it. And we have some answers to cross-claims in which Mr. Epstein asserts some facts to which we don't know what the question was.\n\nAnd I suppose this brings me to the broader point which applies to the letter and Epstein deposition as well, which is that this was not a material fact in that litigation; and so there was no reason for the government to litigate when Mr. Epstein, in fact, lived in and was occupying particular residences.\n\nWhat mattered in that litigation is that at some point in early 1996, Mr. Epstein made an attempt to do an illegal sublet of the property; and so the government was suing for ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein. But it did not matter to the government whether Mr. Epstein abandoned the property in January 1996, December 1995, November 1995. There was no reason for that to be litigated in the course of that litigation. It just mattered that he abandoned the property before he tried to do the illegal sublet. That's why it's in the background section of Judge Chin's opinion; that's why it's not a significant portion of any of the other documents. There is absolutely no reason to take judicial notice of it. And actually for the same reason, it's not subject to the 804",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014280",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Mr. Epstein",
      "Judge Chin"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "January 1996",
      "December 1995",
      "November 1995",
      "early 1996"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014280"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript or legal document. It is typed and contains no handwritten text or stamps. The content discusses a legal case involving Mr. Epstein and a government litigation."
}