mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES005/DOJ-OGR-00014281.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "175",
    "document_number": "763",
    "date": "08/10/22",
    "document_type": "court transcript",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 197 2716 LCHVMAX6 hearsay exception. MS. MENNINGER: That's not true, your Honor. In this litigation, one of the central issues that the government -- this same office -- put forth is that Mr. Epstein's abandoning that property was in violation of the lease, which kept him -- which he needed to reside in the residence under the terms of the lease. So it was a central fact. It was admitted by Mr. Epstein. It was put forth in their claims against him, and that is all covered in the summary judgment motion. It was admitted on an answer. It was the only admission on that point. And then it was testified to in a deposition. So I don't think that saying it was not an issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look at all of these. Also, the factual background about the witness that they said that they would call to dispute this, we've interviewed this witness, and his testimony is not at all in contradiction to this. He was hired in December of '95. He said Mr. Epstein wasn't living there for the first three weeks that he was hired in December of '95, and took possession in early '96. So I don't think there is a basis to call a rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, all of which are covered both by 201, as well as 804(b)(1). MR. ROHRBACH: That's not accurate about this witness. But as a general point, there's no question that if SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 DOJ-OGR-00014281",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 197 2716 LCHVMAX6",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "hearsay exception. MS. MENNINGER: That's not true, your Honor. In this litigation, one of the central issues that the government -- this same office -- put forth is that Mr. Epstein's abandoning that property was in violation of the lease, which kept him -- which he needed to reside in the residence under the terms of the lease. So it was a central fact. It was admitted by Mr. Epstein. It was put forth in their claims against him, and that is all covered in the summary judgment motion. It was admitted on an answer. It was the only admission on that point. And then it was testified to in a deposition. So I don't think that saying it was not an issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look at all of these. Also, the factual background about the witness that they said that they would call to dispute this, we've interviewed this witness, and his testimony is not at all in contradiction to this. He was hired in December of '95. He said Mr. Epstein wasn't living there for the first three weeks that he was hired in December of '95, and took possession in early '96. So I don't think there is a basis to call a rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, all of which are covered both by 201, as well as 804(b)(1). MR. ROHRBACH: That's not accurate about this witness. But as a general point, there's no question that if",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00014281",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "MS. MENNINGER",
      "MR. ROHRBACH",
      "Mr. Epstein"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C."
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "08/10/22",
      "December of '95",
      "early '96"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "763",
      "201",
      "804(b)(1)",
      "DOJ-OGR-00014281"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court transcript with a clear and legible format. There are no visible redactions or damage."
}