DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
603 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
3
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court transcript
File Size:
603 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, likely US v. Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. Defense attorney Ms. Menninger argues regarding the admissibility of evidence concerning Jeffrey Epstein's lease violations and residency at a specific property in late 1995 and early 1996. She references a witness hired in December 1995 who confirmed Epstein was not living at the property for the first three weeks of his employment.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ms. Menninger | Attorney (Defense) |
Speaking to the judge, arguing that Epstein's abandonment of a property was a central fact in previous litigation.
|
| Mr. Rohrbach | Attorney (Prosecution) |
Disputing Ms. Menninger's characterization of a witness's testimony.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Subject of discussion |
Mentioned regarding a lease violation, abandoning a property, and hiring a witness in 1995.
|
| Unnamed Witness | Witness/Employee |
Hired by Epstein in December 1995; provided testimony regarding Epstein's residence timeline.
|
| Your Honor | Judge |
Addressed by Ms. Menninger (Judge Alison J. Nathan based on case number).
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Southern District Reporters, P.C. |
Listed in footer.
|
|
| The Government / This same office |
Referenced by Menninger as having put forth claims about Epstein's lease violation.
|
|
| DOJ |
Implied by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00016904.
|
Timeline (3 events)
1995-12
Witness hired by Epstein; Epstein not living at property for first three weeks.
Unspecified Residence
1996-01
2022-08-10
Court filing date of this transcript document.
Court
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
A property Epstein leased and allegedly abandoned in violation of terms. Specific address not listed on this page.
|
Relationships (1)
He was hired in December of '95.
Key Quotes (2)
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
Quote #1
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00016904.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,563 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 197 2716
LCHVMAX6
LCHVMAX6
1 hearsay exception.
2 MS. MENNINGER: That's not true, your Honor.
3 In this litigation, one of the central issues that the
4 government -- this same office -- put forth is that
5 Mr. Epstein's abandoning that property was in violation of the
6 lease, which kept him -- which he needed to reside in the
7 residence under the terms of the lease. So it was a central
8 fact. It was admitted by Mr. Epstein. It was put forth in
9 their claims against him, and that is all covered in the
10 summary judgment motion. It was admitted on an answer. It was
11 the only admission on that point. And then it was testified to
12 in a deposition. So I don't think that saying it was not an
13 issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look
14 at all of these.
15 Also, the factual background about the witness that
16 they said that they would call to dispute this, we've
17 interviewed this witness, and his testimony is not at all in
18 contradiction to this. He was hired in December of '95. He
19 said Mr. Epstein wasn't living there for the first three weeks
20 that he was hired in December of '95, and took possession in
21 early '96. So I don't think there is a basis to call a
22 rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, all of which are
23 covered both by 201, as well as 804(b)(1).
24 MR. ROHRBACH: That's not accurate about this witness.
25 But as a general point, there's no question that if
2 MS. MENNINGER: That's not true, your Honor.
3 In this litigation, one of the central issues that the
4 government -- this same office -- put forth is that
5 Mr. Epstein's abandoning that property was in violation of the
6 lease, which kept him -- which he needed to reside in the
7 residence under the terms of the lease. So it was a central
8 fact. It was admitted by Mr. Epstein. It was put forth in
9 their claims against him, and that is all covered in the
10 summary judgment motion. It was admitted on an answer. It was
11 the only admission on that point. And then it was testified to
12 in a deposition. So I don't think that saying it was not an
13 issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look
14 at all of these.
15 Also, the factual background about the witness that
16 they said that they would call to dispute this, we've
17 interviewed this witness, and his testimony is not at all in
18 contradiction to this. He was hired in December of '95. He
19 said Mr. Epstein wasn't living there for the first three weeks
20 that he was hired in December of '95, and took possession in
21 early '96. So I don't think there is a basis to call a
22 rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, all of which are
23 covered both by 201, as well as 804(b)(1).
24 MR. ROHRBACH: That's not accurate about this witness.
25 But as a general point, there's no question that if
SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C.
(212) 805-0300
(212) 805-0300
DOJ-OGR-00016904
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document