Documents tagged "Assistant"
Found 29 documents with this tag
DOJ-OGR-00021149.jpg
The image appears to be a scanned document, possibly from court proceedings given the legal context and formatting. The text includes headings such as "ORDER" and references to case numbers and statutes. There is an individual's name listed at the bottom right corner with titles like "Assistant District Attorney," suggesting the person's role within the judicial system. A phone number is also provided next to this name. The document has a header that includes a date of July 15, 2014, and the location "New York, New York." The text is dense with legal jargon and citations, which is typical for official court documents.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_033360.txt
The email invites attendees to a launch party for Michael Wolff's new book, "Siege: Trump Under Fire." The event is scheduled to take place on June 3 from 6-8PM at 15 West 67th Street in New York City. Stephen Rubin is the assistant editor of Henry Holt and has organized the event. Due to limited space, no plus ones will be allowed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032992.txt
In this email exchange, Lawrence Krauss, director of The Origins Project at Arizona State University, expresses concern over President Trump's approach to science and space exploration. Jeffrey E. writes back, suggesting that Krauss's concerns are misplaced and that Trump will actually decimate climate change through his support for verifiable projects. The email also mentions a NASA bill aimed at landing on Mars.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032812.txt
The document is an email from Lawrence Krauss to Jeffrey E. regarding the investigation of Rubenfeld at Yale for conduct with female law students. The investigation was initiated before Kavanaugh's nomination to the high court and focused on his conduct, particularly with female law students. Rubenfeld stated that he did not know what he is alleged to have said or done and that the allegations were not of the kind that would jeopardize his position as a long-tenured member of the faculty. The email emphasizes the confidential and privileged nature of the information contained within.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_032522.txt
Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Arizona State University, wrote to Jeffrey E. expressing concern about the impact of Trump's budget cuts on science and human space exploration. He mentioned that the proposed cuts will decimate real science, particularly particle physics, and end funding for him personally. He also criticized Trump's focus on big and showy projects like rocket size rather than supporting science itself.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031676.txt
In this email exchange, Lawrence Krauss informs Jeffrey E. that he will be taking a voluntary leave from his position as Chair of the Board at the Bulletin, allowing him and the board to make positive statements about each other. Jeffrey E. advises Lawrence Krauss to concentrate on refuting charges made against him in an article by breaking them down into categories such as ludicrous, ogling, jokes, and so on.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031556.txt
In the document, Lawrence Krauss is discussing a situation where he has received criticism and negative publicity due to an announcement about him and buzzfeed. He mentions that he is taking a voluntary leave as Chair of the Board from The Origins Project at ASU, which is directed by him, in order to make nice statements and improve relations with the board. Krauss expresses his hope for the future and references the upcoming 10 year celebration of the Origins Project at Arizona State University.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031433.txt
The document appears to be an email exchange between Lawrence Krauss and Jeffrey E. regarding allegations of sexual harassment. In the emails, Krauss denies having sex with someone and explains that they mutually decided against it. He also mentions his position as Director of The Origins Project at Arizona State University and provides contact information for himself and others in his office.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031415.txt
The U.S. Justice Department has opened an investigation into whether attorneys committed professional misconduct in handling the case of Jeffrey Epstein, who was accused of molesting young girls and received just over a year in jail as part of his sentence. The inquiry is being handled by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which explores allegations of employee wrongdoing. However, even if it finds evidence of misconduct, its findings are not usually made public and may have limited consequences for the attorneys involved. The department revealed the investigation in response to questions from Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) about how the department handled its inquiry into Epstein's case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031396.txt
The US Department of Justice has opened an investigation into whether attorneys committed "professional misconduct" in the handling of Jeffrey Epstein's child sex abuse case. The case had been the subject of an investigation by the Miami Herald, which revealed that then-US Attorney Alex Acosta, now President Trump's labor secretary, shelved a 53-page indictment that could have put Epstein behind bars for life. Epstein, who has connections to both Donald Trump and Bill Clinton, assembled a high-powered legal team to address the allegations he faced, but ultimately pleaded guilty in 2008 only to state charges of soliciting prostitution. The investigation is being handled by the Office of Professional Responsibility, which typically results in employees being fired, but its findings are not usually made public.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_031269.txt
The email exchange discusses allegations of sexual harassment against Dr. Lawrence Krauss, a prominent scientist and director at Arizona State University's Origins Project. The sender inquires about the validity of the accusations and seeks advice on how to respond. It is suggested that mutual decisions were made during encounters in 2006, but the question remains why multiple women have accused him over more than a decade.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029238.txt
The government has made a new allegation in the Jeffrey Epstein case, claiming that two of the victims were complicit in his crimes and therefore cannot be considered victims under federal law. This claim was made during a routine status check on a 2008 lawsuit tied to Epstein's plea deal. The victims' attorney, Brad Edwards, plans to have other victims testify at trial and has filed a motion to overturn the non-prosecution agreement that protected Epstein from serious charges and prison time.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029234.txt
The document discusses a conversation between Jeffrey E. and Lawrence Krauss about an article they both read, which argues against fanaticism. They also discuss the role of religion in people's lives and how fanaticism can be dangerous regardless of whether it is religious or secular. Noam Chomsky is also mentioned as someone who agrees with Krauss on this point but differs on some other topics.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029209.txt
This document contains a series of emails between several individuals discussing scheduling and canceling meetings. Key people mentioned include Jeffrey Epstein, Lesley Groff, Neil Gershenfeld, Ed Boyden, and the President of the United States at the time, Barack Obama. The topic of the BRAIN Initiative is also referenced, which suggests that some of the discussions involve neuroscience or brain research.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029207.txt
The document discusses a meeting between Ed Boyden and Jeffrey Epstein that was cancelled last minute due to scheduling conflicts. The Obama BRAIN Initiative is mentioned as an ongoing project at MIT, where Ed Boyden works as the Leader of the Synthetic Neurobiology Group. Lesley Groff, Assistant to Jeffrey Epstein, also sends a message cancelling the trip.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029196.txt
Lawrence Krauss is a professor at Arizona State University who has been invited to give a lecture in Germany on October 19th. He initially considered purchasing an economy ticket for the event but found that he could purchase a business class upgrade using his frequent flyer miles. In a previous email exchange, Jeffrey E. asked Krauss about Justin's bill and total to date. The content of the original email is not provided in this summary.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029190.txt
The document is an email exchange between two individuals discussing travel plans and the cost of air tickets. Lawrence Krauss, a professor at Arizona State University, mentions attending an event in Germany on October 19th. The person he's communicating with is referred to as Jeffrey E. There are also references to other people named Justin Bill and the city of Heidelberg. The email includes contact information for Lawrence Krauss and links to his Twitter and website.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029185.txt
Professor Lawrence Krauss from Arizona State University is planning to attend an event in Heidelberg on October 19th. He is considering purchasing an economy ticket for $1300 and upgrading it using miles. The original air ticket was about 5250 euros, but there was a cancellation fee of $900. Krauss offered the other option to pay them 4500 euros, but they only had $5K USD total, which includes the $4K fee they originally offered him. He is checking other tickets now and asking if anyone will be flying to Europe around then and could take a hitchhiker.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.txt
The document is a letter from attorney Martin G. Weinberg to John Zucker, Assistant Legal Counsel for ABC's Office of Legal Counsel, regarding an upcoming interview with Jane Doe 3 on Good Morning America and Night Line. The lawyer represents Jeffrey Epstein and believes that the airing of the interview will be grossly negligent or worse because the accusations made by Jane Doe 3 are uncorroborated, have been refuted by other credible evidence, and were previously considered immaterial and impertinent by a federal judge in a pending litigation. The lawyer also mentions that Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with an FBI investigation into Mr. Epstein eight years ago.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028939.txt
Lawrence Krauss is a professor at Arizona State University and director of the Origins Project, which focuses on science and society. In this email exchange with Jeffrey E., they discuss their opinions about religion's impact on people's lives and the dangers of fanaticism in both religious and secular contexts. They also talk about the importance of responding to irrational beliefs with argument and evidence rather than ridicule or disrespect for the individuals who hold those beliefs.