Skip to main content
Skip to content

Duplicate Document

This document appears to be a copy. The original version is:

House Oversight Deposition Q&A on Motion to Strike and Leading Questions
Case File
kaggle-ho-021830House Oversight

House Oversight Deposition Q&A on Motion to Strike and Leading Questions

House Oversight Deposition Q&A on Motion to Strike and Leading Questions The passage contains generic procedural discussion about legal standards for motions to strike and leading questions, with no mention of specific high‑profile individuals, financial transactions, or misconduct. It offers no actionable leads for investigation. Key insights: Discusses court's duty to consider pleadings in the light most favorable to the moving party.; Mentions requirement of a good‑faith basis for asking leading questions at depositions.; References a response to Professor Alan Dershowitz's motion to strike.

Date
Unknown
Source
House Oversight
Reference
kaggle-ho-021830
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

House Oversight Deposition Q&A on Motion to Strike and Leading Questions The passage contains generic procedural discussion about legal standards for motions to strike and leading questions, with no mention of specific high‑profile individuals, financial transactions, or misconduct. It offers no actionable leads for investigation. Key insights: Discusses court's duty to consider pleadings in the light most favorable to the moving party.; Mentions requirement of a good‑faith basis for asking leading questions at depositions.; References a response to Professor Alan Dershowitz's motion to strike.

Tags

kagglehouse-oversightlegal-proceduredepositionmotion-to-strikecourt-standards

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — Q. Would you also agree that if there is any doubt as to whether the allegations might be an issue in the action, courts will deny the motion? A. That was our position in our response to Professor Dershowitz's motion to strike, yes. Q. And in considering a motion to strike, the court must consider the pleadings in the light most favorable to the party making the pleading, correct? A. Yeah, that's our position, that was our position, yes. Q. Okay. In your view, is it -- for an attorney to ask a leading question at a deposition, does the attorney have to have a good-faith basis to believe that that question is true or the facts assumed in that question are true? A. I mean, that's a broad question, but as a general rule, yeah. Q. As a general rule -- I'm not being very articulate -- A. Yeah. Q. -- you don't ask a leading question about a fact unless you have a good-faith basis to believe that facts is true, correct? A. I think that's right. I mean I don't know if over the last day and a half, you know, narrow questions ROUGH DRAFT ONLY

Related Documents (6)

House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

Extensive FBI & Palm Beach Police Investigation Links Jeffrey Epstein to Underage Sexual Abuse, Payments, and High‑Profile Associates

The compiled documents provide a wealth of actionable intelligence: detailed victim and witness statements describing under‑age massages and sexual assaults; financial transaction records (cash paymen Victims (girls aged 14‑17) were recruited with promises of $200‑$300 per massage and were repeatedly Trash pulls from 358 El Brillo Way yielded message books containing names, dates, phone numbers, a

240p
House OversightMar 24, 2015

Dershowitz’s Unproduced ‘Absolute Proof’ Documents and Media Claims in Epstein‑Related Defamation Litigation

Dershowitz’s Unproduced ‘Absolute Proof’ Documents and Media Claims in Epstein‑Related Defamation Litigation The filing reveals that Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted on national TV that he possessed travel, credit‑card and other records proving he never met Jane Doe #3, yet has failed to produce any such documents after multiple discovery requests. The passage ties Dershowitz to Jeffrey Epstein, Prince Andrew, Bill Clinton and other high‑profile figures, and highlights possible obstruction of discovery and false public statements—both actionable legal leads and potentially explosive public controversy if verified. Key insights: Dershowitz claimed on Fox Business (Jan 7 2015) and CNN (Jan 5 2015) to have "all kinds of records" disproving the allegations.; Despite a 45‑day deadline, he produced no documents and responded only with boilerplate objections.; The motion cites the CVRA claim that Jane Doe #3 alleges sexual trafficking by Epstein, Prince Andrew and Dershowitz.

1p
OtherUnknown

NAME SEARCHED: Jeffrey Epstein

DOJ EFTA Data Set 10 document EFTA01296720

114p
House OversightUnknown

Alleged Mueller Team Preparing Obstruction Indictment of President Trump and Planning to Counter Potential Flynn Pardon

Alleged Mueller Team Preparing Obstruction Indictment of President Trump and Planning to Counter Potential Flynn Pardon The passage claims the Special Counsel’s office has a draft obstruction indictment against the President and a strategy to block a pardon for Michael Flynn. It names high‑level officials (Mueller, Rosenstein, Trump, Flynn) and suggests internal decision‑making dynamics, which could be a useful investigative lead. However, the account is based on anonymous, off‑record sources, offers no concrete documents, dates, or transaction details, and the claim has been widely reported in the media without new evidence, limiting its novelty and actionable value. Key insights: Anonymous sources say Mueller’s team drafted an obstruction of justice indictment against President Trump.; Mueller’s office allegedly prepared a legal theory to oppose a possible pardon of Michael Flynn.; Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein is portrayed as the gatekeeper for any indictment.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Court filings reveal alleged non‑prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein and references to high‑profile political figures

The document contains sworn declarations and court orders that reference a secret non‑prosecution agreement (NPA) with Jeffrey Epstein, claims that the U.S. Government concealed it from victims, and m Petitioners allege the Government violated victims' rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act by hi Court order strikes detailed allegations but acknowledges they exist in the filings. Jane Doe 3’s

17p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Dershowitz’s Unproduced ‘Absolute Proof’ Documents and Media Claims in Epstein‑Related Defamation Litigation

The filing reveals that Alan Dershowitz repeatedly asserted on national TV that he possessed travel, credit‑card and other records proving he never met Jane Doe #3, yet has failed to produce any such Dershowitz claimed on Fox Business (Jan 7 2015) and CNN (Jan 5 2015) to have "all kinds of records" Despite a 45‑day deadline, he produced no documents and responded only with boilerplate objections

26p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.