Deposition Dispute Over Exhibit Marking in House Oversight Hearing
Summary
The passage records a procedural disagreement about marking exhibits during a deposition. It mentions no high‑ranking officials, financial transactions, or substantive allegations of misconduct, offer Mr. Leopold threatens court sanctions if exhibits are removed unmarked. Mr. Tein disputes the claim that exhibits are unmarked. Mr. Goldberger references long‑standing practice without prior disputes
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Tags
Related Documents (6)
Transcript excerpt from House Oversight deposition showing heated exchange over exhibit handling
The passage records a minor procedural dispute in a deposition with no concrete allegations, names, dates, or financial details. It offers little investigative value beyond confirming normal courtroom Mr. Tein accuses Mr. Leopold of misrepresenting the record. Dispute over labeling and copying of exhibits. Witness expresses willingness to disagree professionally.
Transcript excerpt showing a contentious deposition exchange with no clear high‑profile actors
The passage records a heated deposition dialogue but lacks any identifiable influential individuals, concrete transactions, dates, or substantive allegations. It offers minimal investigative value bey A deposition was cancelled and later reinstated without clear reason. Mr. Tein expresses frustration over the cancellation and mentions a personal impact on 'Jack'. Mr. Leopold and Mr. Goldberger are
Deposition excerpt shows heated exchange among attorneys with no substantive allegations
The passage is a routine courtroom deposition transcript featuring lawyers arguing over procedure. It contains no names of influential actors, no financial or misconduct details, and offers no actiona The excerpt records a dispute between attorneys (Mr. Tein, Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Leopold) about taking No mention of any high‑profile individuals, agencies, or controversial actions. The content is pro
Deposition excerpt showing attorney objections to questions about witness Saige's alleged false statements
The passage provides a narrow view of a courtroom exchange with no named high‑profile officials, financial details, or foreign actors. It suggests a possible dispute over a witness’s testimony but lac Attorney Mr. Tein questions witness Saige about alleged lies to avoid deposition and subpoena. Attorney Mr. Leopold repeatedly objects to the form of the questions, citing lack of foundation. The wit
Deposition excerpt showing contested attorney‑client privilege claims
The passage records a routine deposition dispute over privilege and mentions a lawyer (Jeffrey Herman) filing a lawsuit, but provides no concrete details about transactions, high‑level officials, or w Mr. Tein accuses Mr. Leopold of missing a hearing and obstructing the deposition. Reference to a lawyer named Jeffrey Herman filing a lawsuit on the witness’s behalf. Debate over whether attorney‑cli
Deposition excerpt featuring use of racial slur and exhibit identification dispute
The passage contains a contentious exchange over a racial slur during a deposition, but it mentions only low‑level participants (Mr. Leopold, Mr. Tein) and provides no concrete leads about financial f Witness uses the word "Niggaa" in response to a question. Counsel (Mr. Leopold) requests the word be spelled for the record. Dispute over whether the document is marked as an exhibit (exhibit 31-001)
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.