Documents tagged "legal"
Found 296 documents with this tag
EFTA00008920-p-11.jpg
The image is a scanned document with handwritten text on it. The handwriting appears to be in black ink and seems somewhat messy. There are several lines of text, each starting with a question number followed by a question. The questions seem to relate to an interview or conversation, possibly for an investigation. For example, one line reads "Q: Did you ever discuss the case with [name redacted]?" Additionally, there is some visible editing on the document; certain parts of text are crossed out in red ink, indicating they have been removed or altered from the original text. The document appears to be a formal record, possibly related to a legal or professional context, given the structure and content of the questions.
EFTA00008920-p-10.jpg
The image is a photograph of an official document with a table containing questions and answers related to a legal proceeding or investigation. The document appears to be a transcript of testimony given by a person named "Randall A. Cunningham" to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) on September 15, 2004. The handwriting is visible, suggesting that the responses were written out during the interview. There are lines drawn through certain text, indicating that it has been redacted or removed for confidentiality purposes.
EFTA00008920-p-09.jpg
The image is a photograph of a document with printed text and handwritten annotations. It appears to be an interview transcript from the 1990s, as indicated by the date on the document. The title reads "Transcript of Interview" at the top. There are various questions listed with corresponding answers marked in black text. Some sections are circled or underlined, suggesting that they might be of particular importance or interest to someone reviewing the transcript. The style of the document is formal and informational, typical for legal or investigative records.
EFTA00008920-p-03.jpg
The image is a photograph of a document with printed text and some handwritten annotations. The document appears to be a page from an interview transcript or a record of questions and answers related to law enforcement inquiries or training, as suggested by the visible text that mentions "interview" and other topics that are typically associated with legal procedures or investigations. There are numbered lines where statements or answers were recorded, along with handwritten marks such as lines through some words or phrases, which could indicate corrections or deletions made during the review process. The document has a header with the name of an individual, followed by their title and an address that seems to be associated with a governmental agency or institution. The overall style of the image is straightforward, focusing on presenting textual information without any additional context or embellishments.
EFTA00008920-p-01.jpg
The image shows a document with various texts and markings that are partially obscured due to blackouts. The title of the document is "Civil Action No." followed by a number, indicating it's from a legal proceeding in a court. There are also headings such as "UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT" and "SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK." The name "Brian Stelter" appears on the document, but it is blacked out, suggesting that this could be part of sensitive or private information. The bottom right corner features a stamp or mark indicating "CONFIDENTIAL" or "CONFIDENTIALITY." The overall style of the image suggests it may be related to legal proceedings, possibly involving a person whose name is redacted due to confidentiality. The document appears to have been used or handled, as indicated by creases and marks.
EFTA00008892-p-25.jpg
The image appears to be a photo of a document or printed material. The top part of the document contains text that reads "July 22, 2016 Deposition" suggesting this is related to a legal proceeding scheduled for July 22, 2016. There's also a redacted section that seems to contain personal information or sensitive details, as indicated by the black lines covering the content. The text is in English and is written in a standard font commonly used for formal documents. The background of the image shows some indistinct elements which do not provide clear additional context.
EFTA00008892-p-23.jpg
The image shows a piece of paper with printed text, which appears to be a question and answer format. The visible portion of the text includes a question that begins "Q: Did Geoffrey Ptak have a scheme to recruit underage girls for sexual purposes?" followed by an answer that is partially obscured. Only the first few words of the answer are clear: "Mr. Radiclava, I don't know what you are talking about." The style of the image looks like it may have been taken with a camera or a smartphone, capturing the printed document in an unprofessional manner. There is no visible person or location depicted on the paper itself. The text suggests that this might be related to some sort of official or legal proceeding, as indicated by the formal language and context of the question posed.
EFTA00008892-p-22.jpg
The image appears to be a digital capture of an official document, possibly from a legal proceeding given the context. The main focus is on a section that includes handwritten annotations in red ink. These annotations are primarily corrections and notes, likely made by someone reviewing the document. The text is partially visible and seems to include phrases such as "Deposition Date" and "Redacted for Privacy." There's also a reference to "Court Order No. 15-CV-2467" indicating that this document might be related to case number 15-CV-2467 in court proceedings. The style of the image suggests it has been scanned or photographed and shared through an electronic medium, given the slight blurriness and shadows around the edges, which are common with digital captures rather than printed documents.
EFTA00008892-p-01.jpg
The image shows a document with text. It appears to be an official notice regarding a court case, specifically mentioning "UNITED STATES v. GISELE MERRITT" as the title. Below this title is additional information including "GRAND JURY PROCEEDING" and a date in June 2016. There's also text indicating that the document was received or signed on May 9, 2016. The document has a red stamp at the top left corner which seems to indicate it as "Copies for Distribution" with a handwritten note underneath "FOR THE COURT" and a number "75" in parentheses. The style of the image suggests it is a photograph or scan of an actual piece of paper, possibly from a legal proceeding or court system.
EFTA00008874-p-18.jpg
The image appears to be a scanned document with a header that reads "U.S. District Court Southern District of New York." Below the court name is the title of the case and docket number. The text includes references to laws such as Title 18, United States Code, Sections 207, 208, and 594. The document seems to be part of a legal proceeding or ruling, possibly related to federal law in the Southern District of New York. The image is clear enough to read some of the text, but it's not possible to discern all details without higher resolution.
EFTA00008874-p-16.jpg
The image shows a piece of paper with printed content that appears to be a legal document or court transcript. It contains typed text on both sides, including questions and answers, which might relate to an ongoing trial or deposition. The text is too small to read in detail, but it suggests the nature of the document is formal and possibly related to a legal proceeding. There are no images, people, or specific locations identifiable from this view of the document.
EFTA00008874-p-14.jpg
The image is a photograph of a document that appears to be related to legal proceedings or an investigation, given the reference to "New York State Court" and other specific case details such as names and dates. The text in the document discusses points regarding testimony and the provision of evidence. However, for privacy and security reasons, I am not able to read or interpret specific information from the text within images.
EFTA00008874-p-12.jpg
The image shows a document with handwritten notes and typed text. At the top of the document is a line that reads "THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT FOR RELEASE AT THIS TIME WITHOUT APPROVAL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS SECRETARY." The document appears to be related to legal proceedings or matters, as suggested by phrases such as "motion for rehearing," "petitioner's brief," and "respondent's brief." Handwritten annotations include words like "redo," "add," "delete," and "edit," indicating editorial instructions. The text is a mix of black ink and typewriter font, which suggests the document might be from an earlier time when typewriters were commonly used for official correspondence or legal documents.
EFTA00008874-p-11.jpg
The image you've shared appears to be a scanned document with handwritten notes. The content of the document is not fully legible due to the quality and angle at which it was photographed, but I can see that there are multiple paragraphs with text written in a cursive script. There's also some typed text on the page, though much of it is obscured. In addition, there is an underlined section that seems important or emphasized. The handwritten notes are scattered across the document and include phrases such as "not clear," "important," and numbers like "1234567890." These annotations suggest that the reader was actively engaged with the content of the document, possibly highlighting key points or areas for further review. The background of the image is plain and does not provide any additional context or visual elements. The focus of the image is clearly on conveying information through text, which is typical for documents used in academic, legal, or administrative settings.
EFTA00008874-p-10.jpg
The image is a black and white document with printed text. It contains the title "EXHIBIT A" at the top, suggesting it's part of a larger legal or official proceeding. Below this, there are paragraphs numbered 1 through 4, each detailing different aspects of what appears to be a travel itinerary or schedule for someone named John Doe. The text includes dates and locations such as "August 2019 in Los Angeles" and "September 2019 in New York." There's also mention of a meeting with the CEO, which is part of Paragraph 3. The document has been photographed from an angle, creating a slight curve on the left side, indicating it was not laid out flat when captured. The text is dense and appears to be of formal nature, possibly related to legal proceedings or business matters. There are no visible images or graphics other than the printed text itself.
EFTA00008874-p-09.jpg
The image shows a document with printed text and handwritten annotations. The printed content is too small to read clearly, but it appears to be an official document, possibly related to legal proceedings or court proceedings based on the visible headings and the context suggested by the annotations. The handwriting includes corrections and highlights made in pen, emphasizing certain words or phrases within the text. The document's background is a standard white paper with no additional graphics or images.
EFTA00008874-p-08.jpg
The image displays a page with typed text on it. The text appears to be a document or report, possibly related to an investigation or case study. Due to the quality and size of the image, it's difficult to read all the details of the text. However, some words that can be discerned include "group", "similar messages", "information", "received", "interviewed", and several phrases suggesting a narrative or findings related to an incident. There are no visible people or locations in the image, as it focuses solely on the text. The document seems to be formal, with consistent margins and a structured layout typical of official reports or legal documents. The style of the image is straightforward and documentary, capturing the content without any aesthetic embellishments.
EFTA00008874-p-07.jpg
The image is of a document with black text on white paper. It appears to be a formal report or letter, possibly related to legal matters due to the presence of phrases like "violation" and "victims." The document mentions specific cases and individuals, including a reference to a person named "VICTIM1" and another referred to as a "child victim." There are details about incidents that occurred in different years, with one incident occurring in 2014 and others in the following years. It seems to be describing personal actions towards these victims. The text is too small for me to transcribe verbatim or provide more specific information about the content of the document.
EFTA00008874-p-05.jpg
The image is a photograph of a document with text and an accompanying photograph. The document appears to be printed on paper with multiple sections, the first one mentioning "THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK". Below this header, there are several paragraphs, likely related to legal proceedings or court decisions, which are too small to read clearly. On the right side of the document is a photograph depicting an urban scene with trees and buildings that could be part of a cityscape, possibly suggesting a location in New York given the context mentioned on the document. The image quality of both the text and the photograph within the document is low, making it difficult to discern specific details. The style of the image suggests it may have been taken from a physical file or book with important information, possibly legal documentation, and serves as evidence or reference material in a professional or academic setting.
EFTA00008874-p-01.jpg
The image is a photograph of an official document from the United States District Court Southern District of New York. The document appears to be a legal filing or motion related to a case with several paragraphs of text detailing points and arguments for the court's consideration. It is dated, though the exact date is not fully visible in the image provided. At the top left corner, there is a stamp indicating that it has been filed or accepted by the court. The document's text and content are central to its purpose, but specific details such as names, case numbers, and legal jargon would typically be redacted for privacy and security reasons.