Epstein Secrets

with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United States, district court could properly take judicial notice of fact that FCI Tallahassee was within special territorial jurisdiction of United States). 22 Respondent's Exhibit A Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRAMOHNSON EFTA00208058 Case

bserved that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. III. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal

with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United States, district court could properly take judicial notice of fact that FCI Tallahassee was within special territorial jurisdiction of United States). F lPursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3771(cX3), "[i]f the district court denies the relief soug

served that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id. (citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc. , 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. III. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no lega

with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United States, district court could properly take judicial notice of fact that FCI Tallahassee was within special territorial jurisdiction of United States). 22 EFTA00078856 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/08/2

bserved that, "[f]actual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Ill. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal

with intent to commit murder within territorial jurisdiction of United States, district court could properly take judicial notice of fact that FCI Tallahassee was within special territorial jurisdiction of United States). 22 EFTA00230087 ,5tit;c7/.1.7/.7. Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 62 Entered on

bserved that, "[fjactual admissions can be binding as judicial admissions; admissions of legal conclusions cannot." Id.(citations omitted). See also Dabertin v. HCR Manor Care, Inc., 68 F.Supp.2d 998, 1000 (N.D. Dl. 1999)("It is well established that judicial admissions on questions of law have no legal