| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ambassador Oren
|
Commentator subject |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Social event | A cocktail party where Epstein allegedly introduced Jane to the dean of Interlochen. | a cocktail party | View |
| N/A | N/A | Job Interview | Epstein's Palm Beach residence | View |
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing the cross-examination of a witness named Jane. The questioner presses Jane on whether she recalls telling the government in December 2019 that she was introduced to the dean of Interlochen by Epstein at a cocktail party. Jane repeatedly states she does not remember or recall this event, though she does confirm remembering meeting the dean of admissions for Julliard.
This legal document details a court case involving a petitioner, Ms. Wild, and the U.S. government concerning the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in the context of Jeffrey Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals initially denied Wild's petition, but was highly critical of the government's lack of transparency and 'active misrepresentation'. The court later vacated its own opinion and granted a rehearing en banc, with a new oral argument scheduled.
This document details events in April and May 2008 concerning the federal investigation into Epstein, highlighting prosecutors' frustration with delays caused by the defense's appeal to the Department's Criminal Division. It captures communications showing officials, including Acosta, VillafaƱa, and Sloman, were concerned about victims losing patience and were contemplating filing charges. Concurrently, it describes a separate legal discussion where USAO supervisors, prompted by an unrelated complaint, affirmed their position that victims' rights under the CVRA are only triggered once formal charges are filed.
In this July 2017 email, Barbro C. Ehnbom thanks Jeffrey Epstein for supporting her organization, 'BBB,' and highlights its network of '200 quite fantastic young women,' including specific high-profile figures. She mentions an upcoming radio appearance where she will discuss the women and a past blind date with Donald Trump. Ehnbom explicitly asks Epstein for a cell phone number so she can send him photos from BBB more easily than via email and provides banking details for a transfer to BBB AB.
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law journal article) produced to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and specifically analyzes case law determining that victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. It prominently cites 'Does v. United States' (the Epstein case) in the Southern District of Florida, noting that the court rejected the government's dismissal attempts and acknowledged that victims might be entitled to invalidate Epstein's nonprosecution agreement.
This page, stamped with House Oversight markings, discusses a controversy at Irvine (UC Irvine) regarding the disruption of a speech by Ambassador Oren by Muslim Union students (likely the 'Irvine 11' incident). The text critiques ACLU leaders Chuck Anderson and Hector Villagro for signing a letter that failed to condemn the censorship, contrasting their stance with Dean Chemerinsky, who argued the disruption was not protected free speech. The author argues that failing to prosecute or discipline the students encourages further censorship of pro-Israel speakers.
Suggesting they tell their son to write to students directly rather than parents.
Circulating press coverage of a legal victory for the firm regarding Emirates NBD.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity