Subject: Emailing: Work Release Notice -- Kirvin Clients.wpd

Epstein Depositions

10. 11. 12. l3. 14. 16. 17. l8. 19. Jeffrey Epstein v. Bradley J. Edwards, et Case No.: 50 2009 CA Attachments to Statement of Undisputed Facts Deposition of Jeffrey Epstein taken March 17, 2010 Deposition of Jane Doe taken March 11, 2010 (Pages 379, 380, 527, 564?67, 568) Deposition of LM. taken September 24, 2009 (Pages 73, 74, 164, 141, 605, 416) Deposition ofE.W. taken May 6, 2010 (1 15, 1.16, 255, 205, 215?216) Deposition of Jane Doe #4 (32-34, 136) Deposition of Jeffrey Eps

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

House Oversight hearing excerpt reveals possible undisclosed cell phone evidence and questions about financial ties to Jeffrey Epstein

The passage hints that a cell phone, potentially containing incriminating data, was handed to Michelle Pagan and not returned, and raises the question of how much money a witness hopes to receive from Witness gave a cell phone to Michelle Pagan several years ago and has not recovered it. The cell phone could contain communications relevant to ongoing investigations. The line of questioning probes

EFTA00014154

Incoherent Deposition Transcript with Casual Text Message Reference

The excerpt contains fragmented dialogue from a deposition and a personal text message with no clear connection to any influential actors, financial transactions, or misconduct. It lacks specific name Deposition includes vague references to a serious testimony but no substantive content. A casual text message mentions MySpace and personal affection, unrelated to any official matter. No high‑profil

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.