DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
615 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
2
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
615 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, where an attorney, Ms. Menninger, argues that a statement about when Mr. Epstein abandoned a property is not a settled fact. She contends that defense witnesses could have testified that Epstein lived on East 71st Street prior to 1996, contradicting the idea he abandoned it then, and references a prior opinion by Judge Chin to support her argument that the facts are disputable. The transcript ends with the presiding judge asking to see the document under discussion.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein |
Subject of discussion regarding when he abandoned a property and where he was living prior to 1996.
|
|
| Judge Chin | Judge |
Mentioned in reference to a summary judgment opinion he wrote.
|
| Ms. Menninger |
A speaker in the transcript, likely an attorney, arguing a point to the court.
|
|
| The Court | Presiding Judge |
A speaker in the transcript, interacting with Ms. Menninger.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the transcript, likely the court reporting agency.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as not being the 'nonmoving party' in a previous case presided over by Judge Chin.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2022-08-10
A court hearing where Ms. Menninger is arguing a point of evidence related to Mr. Epstein's past residence.
prior to 1996
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A location where Mr. Epstein was allegedly living prior to 1996.
|
Relationships (1)
Ms. Menninger is addressing the Court as 'your Honor' and presenting legal arguments in a formal court setting.
Key Quotes (3)
"Can I see it?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge asking to see a document being discussed by Ms. Menninger.)
DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
Quote #1
"What's that, your Honor?"Source
— MS. MENNINGER
(Responding to the Court's request.)
DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
Quote #2
"Can I see the document?"Source
— THE COURT
(The judge repeating the request to see the document.)
DOJ-OGR-00016901.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,562 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 172 of 197
LCHVMAX6
2713
1 Street documents we've been talking about, in that the legal
2 documents describing when Mr. Epstein abandoned this property
3 does not reflect where Mr. Epstein was living. As the defense
4 knows, one of the defense witnesses, who they ultimately
5 decided not to call, would have testified that Epstein was
6 living on East 71st Street prior to 1996.
7 And so if the Court admits this -- this is the reason
8 this has to go first in the remaining issues. If the Court
9 admits this, the government would put on rebuttal evidence
10 showing that, in fact, Mr. Epstein lived on 71st Street before
11 he says he abandoned the property in 1996.
12 So that's sort of a substantive background point.
13 Moving through the documents, your Honor, Judge Chin's
14 opinion is a summary judgment opinion. So I think it's quite
15 clear actually that the facts can reasonably be disputed. The
16 summary judgment standard, as the Court well knows, is that the
17 Court -- is that Judge Chin had to take all facts in the light
18 most favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was
19 not the United States. So I think it very much can be
20 controverted that the fact in -- the statement in the
21 background section of Judge Chin's opinion is not a factual
22 finding about when Mr. Epstein abandoned --
23 THE COURT: Can I see it?
24 MS. MENNINGER: What's that, your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Can I see the document?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016901
LCHVMAX6
2713
1 Street documents we've been talking about, in that the legal
2 documents describing when Mr. Epstein abandoned this property
3 does not reflect where Mr. Epstein was living. As the defense
4 knows, one of the defense witnesses, who they ultimately
5 decided not to call, would have testified that Epstein was
6 living on East 71st Street prior to 1996.
7 And so if the Court admits this -- this is the reason
8 this has to go first in the remaining issues. If the Court
9 admits this, the government would put on rebuttal evidence
10 showing that, in fact, Mr. Epstein lived on 71st Street before
11 he says he abandoned the property in 1996.
12 So that's sort of a substantive background point.
13 Moving through the documents, your Honor, Judge Chin's
14 opinion is a summary judgment opinion. So I think it's quite
15 clear actually that the facts can reasonably be disputed. The
16 summary judgment standard, as the Court well knows, is that the
17 Court -- is that Judge Chin had to take all facts in the light
18 most favorable to the nonmoving party, which in this case was
19 not the United States. So I think it very much can be
20 controverted that the fact in -- the statement in the
21 background section of Judge Chin's opinion is not a factual
22 finding about when Mr. Epstein abandoned --
23 THE COURT: Can I see it?
24 MS. MENNINGER: What's that, your Honor?
25 THE COURT: Can I see the document?
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016901
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document