DOJ-OGR-00016903.jpg
634 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
634 KB
Summary
This document is a court transcript where an unidentified speaker argues against the relevance of certain documents concerning a past lawsuit. The speaker explains that a prior litigation between the government and Mr. Epstein centered on an illegal sublet attempt and property abandonment in 1995-1996, asserting these were not material facts to the current case and thus do not warrant judicial notice.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein |
A party in a past litigation with the government regarding an illegal sublet, property abandonment, ejectment, and ba...
|
|
| Judge Chin | Judge |
Mentioned as the author of a judicial opinion that includes a background section on Mr. Epstein's property abandonment.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| government | government agency |
Acted as the plaintiff in a lawsuit against Mr. Epstein, suing for ejectment and back rent.
|
| SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. | company |
Listed at the bottom of the page, likely the firm that transcribed the proceedings.
|
Timeline (3 events)
November 1995, December 1995, January 1996
circa 1996
The government sued Mr. Epstein for ejectment and back rent.
the government
Mr. Epstein
early 1996
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A property that Mr. Epstein attempted to illegally sublet and subsequently abandoned.
|
|
|
Residences that Mr. Epstein lived in and occupied.
|
Relationships (1)
The document states that "the government was suing for ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein."
Key Quotes (2)
"What 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."Source
— Unknown
(The speaker is explaining the central issue of a past lawsuit to argue why other details were not material facts in that litigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00016903.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
— Unknown
(The speaker is arguing against the relevance and significance of documents related to Mr. Epstein's past property litigation.)
DOJ-OGR-00016903.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,776 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 174 of 197 2715
LCHVMAX6
LCHVMAX6
1 the letter, I think, is a sort of separate matter than the
2 summary judgment opinion and the answers. Those are ones where
3 all we have is a summary judgment opinion. We don't know what
4 the basis was for it. And we have some answers to cross-claims
5 in which Mr. Epstein asserts some facts to which we don't know
6 what the question was.
7 And I suppose this brings me to the broader point
8 which applies to the letter and Epstein deposition as well,
9 which is that this was not a material fact in that litigation;
10 and so there was no reason for the government to litigate when
11 Mr. Epstein, in fact, lived in and was occupying the particular
12 residences.
13 What mattered in that litigation is that at some point
14 in early 1996, Mr. Epstein made an attempt to do an illegal
15 sublet of the property; and so the government was suing for
16 ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein. But it did not
17 matter to the government whether Mr. Epstein abandoned the
18 property in January 1996, December 1995, November 1995. There
19 was no reason for that to be litigated in the course of that
20 litigation. It just mattered that he abandoned the property
21 before he tried to do the illegal sublet. That's why it's in
22 the background section of Judge Chin's opinion; that's why it's
23 not a significant portion of any of the other documents. There
24 is absolutely no reason to take judicial notice of it. And
25 actually for the same reason, it's not subject to the 804
2 summary judgment opinion and the answers. Those are ones where
3 all we have is a summary judgment opinion. We don't know what
4 the basis was for it. And we have some answers to cross-claims
5 in which Mr. Epstein asserts some facts to which we don't know
6 what the question was.
7 And I suppose this brings me to the broader point
8 which applies to the letter and Epstein deposition as well,
9 which is that this was not a material fact in that litigation;
10 and so there was no reason for the government to litigate when
11 Mr. Epstein, in fact, lived in and was occupying the particular
12 residences.
13 What mattered in that litigation is that at some point
14 in early 1996, Mr. Epstein made an attempt to do an illegal
15 sublet of the property; and so the government was suing for
16 ejectment and back rent from Mr. Epstein. But it did not
17 matter to the government whether Mr. Epstein abandoned the
18 property in January 1996, December 1995, November 1995. There
19 was no reason for that to be litigated in the course of that
20 litigation. It just mattered that he abandoned the property
21 before he tried to do the illegal sublet. That's why it's in
22 the background section of Judge Chin's opinion; that's why it's
23 not a significant portion of any of the other documents. There
24 is absolutely no reason to take judicial notice of it. And
25 actually for the same reason, it's not subject to the 804
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016903
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document