HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650.jpg
2.46 MB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal review article / house oversight evidence
File Size:
2.46 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen (who later served as Jeffrey Epstein's attorney). The text critiques the Advisory Committee's failure to include 'victim representatives' in Proposed Rule 60, arguing it contradicts the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document is stamped as evidence for the House Oversight Committee, likely relevant to the investigation into the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Schoen | Author / Attorney |
Name appears at the footer of the document. In footnote 127, the author states, 'In the interest of full disclosure, ...
|
| Advisory Committee | Judicial Body |
Responsible for proposed rules regarding victims' rights, criticized in the text for omitting references to victim re...
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Utah Law Review |
Source of the text (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
|
|
| Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Rebuked a trial judge in the Oklahoma City bombing prosecutions (United States v. Fortier).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650' indicates this document is part of a House Oversight investigation (likely conce...
|
|
| General Motors |
Mentioned in footnote 132 as a hypothetical example of a corporate victim.
|
|
| Chase Manhattan Bank |
Mentioned in footnote 132 as a hypothetical example of a corporate victim.
|
Timeline (2 events)
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location associated with the Law Review and case citation (D. Utah 2005).
|
|
|
Referenced regarding the bombing prosecutions.
|
Relationships (1)
Footnote 127: 'In the interest of full disclosure, I was the attorney in question.'
Key Quotes (3)
"The repeated omission of any reference to a victim's representative is unsettling given the Advisory Committee's promise to simply track the CVRA's language."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650.jpg
Quote #1
"In the interest of full disclosure, I was the attorney in question."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650.jpg
Quote #2
"This statement can no longer be regarded as good law in light of the CVRA's commands."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017650.jpg
Quote #3
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document