Courtroom exchange between Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold over parental police report
Summary
The passage provides a brief, disjointed transcript with no concrete names, dates, transactions, or substantive allegations linking influential actors. It lacks actionable details and appears to be ro Mr. Tein questions Mr. Leopold about the parents who filed a police report. The dialogue suggests a dispute over the relevance and appropriateness of the question. No specific individuals, agencies,
This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.
View Source CollectionPersons Referenced (2)
Tags
Related Documents (6)
Transcript excerpt showing vague deposition scheduling and attorney-client privilege references
The passage provides only a fragmented courtroom/house oversight interview with minor, unnamed individuals (Mr. Leopold, Mr. Goldberger, Mr. Tein). It lacks concrete details on transactions, dates, or Witness mentions meeting with Mr. Leopold to prepare for a deposition. Mr. Leopold allegedly could not attend due to a court appearance. Reference to an email from Mr. Leopold to Mr. Goldberger.
Transcript excerpt shows obscure witness questioning about reporters and alleged drug arrest
The passage provides vague, fragmented testimony with no concrete names, dates, financial amounts, or clear links to high‑level officials. It mentions a witness, their mother and her husband Paul, but Witness repeatedly denied any contact with reporters or receipt of money. Reference to an alleged drug arrest and cooperation, but no details. Names mentioned: Mr. Tein, Mr. Leopold, Paul (husband of
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)
Transcript excerpt showing heated exchange between Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold during House Oversight hearing
The passage contains only a brief, uncited dialogue with no names of high‑profile officials, no financial or misconduct details, and no actionable leads. It offers no novel or controversial informatio Shows a tense interaction between two participants in a House Oversight hearing No substantive allegations, dates, transactions, or policy issues are mentioned
Heated exchange between Mr. Tein and Mr. Leopold during House Oversight hearing
The passage records a confrontational dialogue with no concrete allegations, dates, financial details, or links to high‑level officials. It offers minimal investigative value beyond noting a possible Mr. Tein accuses Mr. Leopold of lying in a letter to co‑counsel. Both parties exchange threats of sanctions and accusations of obstruction. The exchange occurs during a House Oversight session (docum
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.