Skip to content
Case File
d-23925House OversightOther

Transcript excerpt showing marking of a one-page document as Exhibit 3 in a House Oversight hearing

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #021918
Pages
1
Persons
2

Summary

The passage contains only procedural dialogue about marking a document for the record and does not reveal any substantive information, names, transactions, or allegations involving powerful actors. It Witness agrees to have the document marked as an exhibit. Mr. Simpson requests the court reporter to label it Exhibit 3. The document is described as a rough draft with typed text and some handwritin

This document is from the House Oversight Committee Releases.

View Source Collection

Persons Referenced (2)

Tags

court-transcripthouse-oversightproceduraldocument-marking
Share
PostReddit

Related Documents (6)

House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court denies amendment to add additional Jane Doe plaintiffs in CVRA case

The passage discusses procedural arguments about adding parties to a civil rights case and does not reveal any new allegations, financial flows, or involvement of high‑profile officials. It offers no Petitioners seek to add Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 as parties but the court finds it unnecessary. Government argues Jane Doe 4 lacks standing because she was not known when a non‑prosecution agreeme T

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court hearing on procedural motions with no substantive allegations

The excerpt consists solely of routine courtroom scheduling and brief procedural references, lacking any concrete allegations, names, transactions, or controversial actions involving powerful actors. The court set a hearing date for the 13th. Briefs were filed regarding a 'black book' issue and a prior motion involving Diane Flores. No substantive evidence or claims are presented.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court transcript snippet discussing defamation claims involving alleged sexual abuse and references to Epstein and Maxwell

The passage provides a vague reference to alleged sexual abuse and a possible connection to Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, but offers no concrete names, dates, transactions, or actionable lead The case involves defamation claims centered on alleged sexual abuse. Plaintiff alleges the defendant was a 'madam' and co-conspirator with Jeffrey Epstein. The court is focusing on the truth or fals

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court strikes numerous paragraphs in filings involving Jane Doe aliases and denies Alan Dershowitz's intervention motion

The passage details routine procedural rulings—striking impertinent paragraphs and denying a motion to intervene—without revealing new facts, financial flows, or connections to high‑profile actors bey The court struck multiple paragraphs from declarations citing non‑party details. Jane Doe #3 and #4 are pseudonyms; no substantive allegations disclosed. Alan Dershowitz's motion to intervene was den

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court hearing on admissibility of defendant's statement regarding defamation claim

The passage is a routine courtroom exchange about evidentiary motions with no specific names, dates, financial details, or high‑level actors. It offers minimal investigative value beyond confirming a Defendant's counsel attempted to attribute a statement to the defendant's lawyer and press agent. The court is considering whether the statement shows the defendant's state of mind and ownership of

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Court transcript excerpt referencing alleged defamation claim involving Ms. Giuffre/Maxwell and mention of Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague procedural discussion about a joinder motion and a brief, unsubstantiated reference to Alan Dershowitz. It lacks concrete details such as dates, transactions, or specific The court is addressing a joinder issue related to a defamation claim by Ms. Giuffre/Maxwell. Counsel mentions Alan Dershowitz in passing, suggesting possible involvement or relevance. No specific fa

1p

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.