DOJ-OGR-00014281.jpg

be NO Ww ws Oo OY ~] oO Ke) a oO he be No (ee) = Hs Oo _ OY a ~] a oO a Ke} 20 21 22 23 24 25 Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE LCHVMAX6 hearsay exception. Document 763 Filed 08/10/22 Page 175 of 197 2716 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. in a deposition. So And then it was testified to I don't think that saying it was not an issue in the case can possibly withstand scrutiny when you look at all of they said that interviewed this witness, contradic said Mr. these. Also, the tion to this. Epstein wasn't living that he was hired in early rebuttal witness to dispute these documents, covered bo "96. So MR. I don' th by 201, ROHRBACH: they would call to dispute He was hired in there December of factual background about the this, December witness that we've and his testimony is not at all in "08 « of He fir for the OS, all st three weeks and took possession in t think there is a basis to call a of which are as well as 804(b) (1). But as a general point, That's not there's no ques SOUTH ERN D STR CT RE PORTERS, Piss (212) 805-0300 tL accurate about this witness. tion that if DOJ-OGR-00014281