U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York

Organization
Mentions
14
Relationships
0
Events
1
Documents
7

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
No relationships found for this entity.
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2008-01-01 N/A United States v. Rubin Eastern District of New York View

DOJ-OGR-00021088.jpg

This page from a legal document argues that the Court's precedents do not require applying the 'Annabi' canon to agreements formed outside its Circuit. It cites several cases to support the position that federal plea agreements should be analyzed under general choice-of-law principles for contracts, highlighting a magistrate judge's questioning of the current practice.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002164.jpg

This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on December 18, 2020. It lists numerous U.S. federal court cases, dating from 1985 to 2019, that are cited as legal precedent in the main document. The cases cover various federal districts and circuits, with a significant number originating from courts in New York.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00022092.jpg

This legal document, page 30 of a court filing from April 24, 2020, outlines the stringent legal standard a defendant must meet to successfully claim selective prosecution. Citing several legal precedents like Armstrong and Alameh, it explains that a defendant must provide clear evidence of both a 'discriminatory effect' (showing similarly situated individuals were not prosecuted) and a 'discriminatory purpose' (showing the prosecution was motivated by impermissible factors like race or religion). The document also specifies the evidentiary threshold required to even obtain discovery on such a claim.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00003066.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002957.jpg

This document is page xxii of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.

Legal document
2025-11-20

DOJ-OGR-00002946.jpg

This document is page 12 of a 239-page legal filing from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, with the United States as the plaintiff against various individual defendants. The page provides full legal citations for each case and indicates the page numbers within the main document where these authorities are referenced.

Legal document
2025-11-20

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017625.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (likely submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee) citing a law review article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology). It presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victims' rights should 'attach' during the investigative phase before formal charges are filed. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) opposition to this view and cites the case *United States v. Rubin* (2008) to define the logical limits of when these rights begin.

Legal brief / congressional submission (excerpt from law review article)
2025-11-19
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity