Duplicate Document
This document appears to be a copy. The original version is:
EFTA Document EFTA01355638EFTA Document EFTA01355638
Summary
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (3)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
9:08CV80804401-2918401-5012Related Documents (6)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-MarratIVIatthewman JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' NOTICE OF FILING THIRD SUPPLEMENTAL PRIVILEGE LOG Pursuant to the Court's June 18, 2013 Omnibus Order (DE 190), the Respondent, United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, hereby gives notice of its filing of its Third Supplemental Privilege Log. The index has been marked with Bates Numbers P-014924 thru P-015267. The documents referenced in the Third Supplemental Privilege Log will be delivered tomorrow to the Chambers of U.S. District Judge Kenneth A. Marra for ex parte in camera review, pursuant to the Court's Omnibus Order. Respectfully submitted, WIFREDO A. FERRER UNITED STATES ATTORNEY By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. MARIE VILLAFAFIA Assistant United States Attorney Florida Bar No. 0018255 500 South Australian Ave, Suite 40
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80804-KAM Document 1-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/21/2008 Page 1 of 100 nsor & Associates RepornnE sad Transcripoon. Inc 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 75 Q. Because Mr. Epstein never came to your dad's house, correct? A. Correct. Q. And no one who worked for Mr. Epstein ever did something to your dad's tires, did they? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of foundation, predicate. Don't guess. BY MR. TEIN: Q. It's not true that Mr. Epstein almost killed your father, is it? MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Asked and answered, lack of foundation, predicate. BY MR. TEIN: Q. You can answer. A. No. Q. Now you told the police that you didn't know who was in the car with you and IIIIIII on the day you went to Epstein's house, didn't you? A. Yes. Q. And that was a lie, wasn't it? A. It's the truth. Q. You told the police that there was someone in the car next to you and you specifically said y
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.
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 showing contentious questioning of a witness
House Oversight hearing excerpt showing contentious questioning of a witness The passage records a procedural dispute during a hearing but provides no concrete names, transactions, dates, or allegations linking powerful actors to misconduct. It offers minimal investigative value beyond confirming a tense exchange. Key insights: Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Leopold argue over repeated questioning of a witness.; The witness is accused of lying after answering the same question multiple times.; No specific allegations, financial flows, or foreign influence are mentioned.
Dispute Over Access to Barcoded Exhibit Copies in House Oversight Hearing
Dispute Over Access to Barcoded Exhibit Copies in House Oversight Hearing The passage mentions a procedural disagreement about obtaining and copying barcoded exhibits, with minor references to individuals (Mr. Pincus, Judge Stern). It lacks concrete details on financial flows, misconduct, or high‑level actors, offering only a low‑value lead for further document‑handling inquiries. Key insights: Party claims they have been denied access to exhibits.; Exhibits are reportedly barcoded and identified by numbers.; Requests for color laser copies and court reporter copies are discussed.
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.