Document

non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO —

Ref IMAGES-006-HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842.txt Release House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025) 1 pages

Epstein Suite indexes the text; the original document lives at its official source. We don't host the original file — view it on the official release to read it in full.

View the original on the official release

Document text

Text is machine OCR and may contain errors. Confirm against the original source above.

Oo O DN OO FF WwW NY =| NO RO PO PNP NM NO | S| S| HS SF S| S| S| S| S| non BP WO NO -|- ODO OO WDN OO OT BP WO NYO — 19 A. The footnote -- one of the problems with the the Word processing program to drop a star footnote is it requires, under the word programing, you have to to have different sections in the document because otherwise it would be footnote -- let's see. Yes, so there was already a footnote 1 on the joinder motion and so, what happens with footnotes is if you identify it as footnote, put in a footnote where the University of Utah signature block is, for example, it becomes footnote 2, so then you have to create a different section and then once you have a different section you can establish a new number and a new nomenclature instead of numbers. You can have the asterisk, and so somehow with the signature block getting reprocessed here, that star footnote dropped off and within I think -- I think it was about three days, I realized that the star footnote had dropped off, so I filed a corrected pleading with the -- with the new star footnote on it. Q. You would agree with me that a fair-minded, a reasonable reader looking at the signature block on the as filed original document, could conclude that the University of Utah was somehow endorsing or standing behind this pleading? A. I don't think that's quite fair. I think the ROUGH DRAFT ONLY HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021842

Have a question about what this document contains?

Ask the documents