HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021841.jpg
1.3 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Transcript (deposition or interview)
File Size:
1.3 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a rough draft transcript of a deposition or interview, likely conducted by the House Oversight Committee. A witness, who is a legal counsel affiliated with the University of Utah College of Law, is being questioned about why a specific footnote—clarifying that their use of the university address did not imply institutional endorsement—was included in one exhibit (Exhibit 1) but omitted from a previous pleading (Exhibit 2). The witness confirms they vouched for the document completely.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown Witness (A) | Witness/Counsel |
A legal professional affiliated with the University of Utah College of Law, answering questions about their signature...
|
| Unknown Interviewer (Q) | Interviewer |
Questioning the witness regarding legal ethics and document formatting.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| University of Utah |
Employer/affiliation of the witness.
|
|
| College of Law (Quinney) |
Specific department at the University of Utah where the witness is based.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (1 events)
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Cited as the address listed on the legal documents.
|
Relationships (1)
Witness lists their address at the College of Law and discusses institutional endorsement.
Key Quotes (2)
"Yes, I was vouching for this document completely."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021841.jpg
Quote #1
"this daytime business address is provided for identification and correspondence purposes only, and is not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the university of Utah"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021841.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,147 characters)
18
1 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law
2 at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your
3 signature to the document?
4 A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature,
5 but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments
6 made in the document, yes.
7 Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I
8 simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your
9 name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of
10 the rules, vouching for this document?
11 A. Yes, I was vouching for this document
12 completely.
13 Q. Okay. And you list here your address as
14 being at the college of law at the University of Utah
15 with no qualification. If you compare that to the next
16 exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says,
19 this daytime business address is provided for
20 identification and correspondence purposes only, and is
21 not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the
22 university of Utah; do you see that?
23 A. I do see that.
24 Q. Why was that footnote not included on the
25 first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2?
1 Q. Quinney, got that one wrong, College of Law
2 at the University of Utah. Is that indicating your
3 signature to the document?
4 A. That's -- that's indicating not my signature,
5 but it's indicating that I stand behind the arguments
6 made in the document, yes.
7 Q. Much more articulate statement than I. I
8 simply wanted to confirm that you had authorized your
9 name to be listed as a counsel who was, for purposes of
10 the rules, vouching for this document?
11 A. Yes, I was vouching for this document
12 completely.
13 Q. Okay. And you list here your address as
14 being at the college of law at the University of Utah
15 with no qualification. If you compare that to the next
16 exhibit, Exhibit 1 actually --
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. -- your signature has a footnote that says,
19 this daytime business address is provided for
20 identification and correspondence purposes only, and is
21 not intended to imply institutional endorsement by the
22 university of Utah; do you see that?
23 A. I do see that.
24 Q. Why was that footnote not included on the
25 first pleading filed which is Exhibit 2?
ROUGH DRAFT ONLY
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021841
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document