This document is an email chain from March 2020 regarding a legal submission on behalf of an unidentified female associate of Jeffrey Epstein. The sender, likely a defense attorney, shares a draft factual statement via Google Docs, arguing that their client should receive a 'non-pros' (non-prosecution) disposition because she was a 'vulnerable victim' acting entirely under Epstein's direction as a 'cog in Epstein's wheel.'
An email from attorney Susan Necheles dated March 13, 2020, sharing a draft legal submission via Google Docs. Necheles argues that her client (name redacted) was a 'cog in Epstein's wheel' who acted under his direction while being a 'vulnerable victim' herself, and suggests that a non-prosecution ('non-pros') disposition is appropriate.
This document contains an email chain from March 2020 between an attorney and likely a prosecutor regarding a legal submission on behalf of a redacted client. The attorney argues that the client was a 'vulnerable victim' and merely a 'cog in Epstein's wheel,' requesting a non-prosecution agreement ('non-pros'). The correspondence also highlights the impact of the early COVID-19 pandemic on the legal proceedings and the client's mental health while in NYC.
This document is an email chain from March 2020 between attorneys discussing a legal submission on behalf of a redacted client. The attorneys argue that the client was a 'cog in Epstein's wheel' and a 'vulnerable victim,' seeking a non-prosecution agreement ('non-pros'). The correspondence also highlights the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, noting the client's fragile mental state while isolated in a stranger's apartment in NYC and the attorneys' reduced productivity while working from home.
A formal response from Google LLC to an FBI Grand Jury Subpoena (dated August 26, 2020) regarding case 2018R01618/20 MAG 9134. Google produced subscriber information for specific redacted accounts (File: GoogleAccount.SubscriberInfo_001.zip) but objected to broader requests for linked accounts and bulk data, citing the ECPA and First Amendment concerns. The document includes a Certificate of Authenticity signed by Albert Sanchez and a hash value sheet for the produced file.
This document is the first page of a scientific research article titled 'Quantitative Analysis of Culture Using Millions of Digitized Books' published in Sciencexpress on December 16, 2010. The paper introduces 'Culturomics' using data from Google Books. It is stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016996', indicating it was part of the House Oversight Committee's investigation, likely due to the involvement of author Martin A. Nowak, the director of the Program for Evolutionary Dynamics at Harvard, which received significant funding from Jeffrey Epstein.
This document appears to be a biographical profile or introduction page (numbered 120) regarding computer scientist Danny Hillis. It details his history at MIT, his relationship with physicist Richard Feynman, and the founding of Thinking Machines Corporation and Applied Invention. The page bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016923, indicating it is part of the House Oversight Committee's investigation files, likely regarding Jeffrey Epstein's connections to scientists and the 'Edge' community, though Epstein is not explicitly named on this specific page.
This document appears to be a printout of a Quora email digest. It contains snippets of user-generated content, specifically a post by Tomas Rauhala about the dating app Tinder and another fragment about American flags. While the document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_025796' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation, the content itself is generic social media spam/digest material and contains no visible text related to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or criminal activities.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity