This document is page 124 of a rough draft deposition transcript from a House Oversight investigation. The witness, advised by attorney Mr. Scarola to invoke common interest privilege, refuses to answer whether their legal team communicated with Mr. Josefsburg. The testimony discusses a complaint signed by Josefsburg using the term 'academicians,' which the witness interprets as evidence against Alan Dershowitz, noting that a partner in Josefsburg's firm subsequently questioned Dershowitz about a sex abuse matter.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Scarola | Attorney |
Counsel advising the witness not to answer based on common interest privilege.
|
| Mr. Simpson | Attorney |
Questioner conducting the deposition.
|
| Mr. Josefsburg | Attorney/Individual |
Signed a complaint using the term 'academicians'; witness has not met him.
|
| Alan Dershowitz | Professor/Academician |
Subject of the discussion; referred to as 'Professor Dershowitz' and 'an academician'.
|
| The Witness | Deponent |
Unidentified individual giving testimony, represented by Mr. Scarola.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
"To the extent that that question would call for a communication within the common interest privilege, you should not answer it."Source
"Mr. Josefsburg had signed a complaint with a generic term 'academicians' in it was some evidence, in your mind, against Professor Dershowitz?"Source
"Yes, because he's an academician and shortly after the complaint was filed, a partner in his firm began asking Alan Dershowitz questions about the sex abuse matter that we are discussing here."Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,045 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document