This document is page 11 of a rough draft deposition transcript, marked with a House Oversight Bates stamp. The dialogue involves a legal questioning regarding the ethics of including allegations of misconduct in legal pleadings. The witness clarifies the distinction between 'relevant' and 'pertinent' and references Federal Rule 11 regarding the requirement that allegations must not be frivolous.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown Speaker Q | Interviewer/Attorney |
Asking questions regarding legal ethics and pleading requirements.
|
| Unknown Speaker A | Witness/Deponent |
Answering questions, clarifying legal definitions regarding relevance vs. pertinence and Rule 11.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021834'.
|
"And would you agree with me that it would be unethical to make allegation of misconduct by a person in a pleading if that -- if those allegations were not relevant to the case?"Source
"Actually, not pertinent to the case."Source
"Pertinent to the case, and as I understand for example under rule 11, the requirement is that the allegations being advanced must not be frivolous."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,165 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document