OLC
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
CVRA
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Cassell
|
Adversarial critical |
6
|
2 | |
|
location
Congress
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Congress
|
Interpretive conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
|
Advisory |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Cassell
|
Critic |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
David Schoen
|
Adversarial critical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CVRA Drafters
|
Interpretive conflict |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act)
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
President, Department components, other executive branch agencies
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Deputy Attorney General
|
Advisory |
1
|
1 | |
|
person
Department (DOJ)
|
Advisory administrative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011-05-20 | N/A | Public release of the OLC opinion regarding CVRA rights. | Washington D.C. (Implied) | View |
| 2011-05-20 | N/A | OLC opinion publicly released. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2011-05-20 | N/A | Public release of the OLC CVRA Rights Memo (dated Dec 17, 2010). | Washington D.C. (implied) | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Issuance of OLC's 2011 memorandum regarding CVRA rights. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2011-01-01 | N/A | Issuance of OLC memorandum regarding CVRA Rights | Washington D.C. (Implied) | View |
| 2010-12-17 | N/A | Date of OLC opinion 'The Availability of Crime Victims' Rights Under the Crime Victims' Rights Ac... | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2010-01-01 | N/A | DOJ OLC releases opinion limiting CVRA rights during investigations. | Washington D.C. | View |
| 2010-01-01 | N/A | Office of the Deputy Attorney General convened a Victim of Crimes Working Group. | Department of Justice | View |
| 2005-04-01 | Legal interpretation | The Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) concluded that the status of a 'crime victim' under the CVRA co... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00023306.tif
This document, an excerpt from a legal report, discusses the handling of victim notification in the Jeffrey Epstein case, specifically focusing on the roles of Sloman, Villafaña, and PBPD Chief Reiter, and the subsequent review of prosecutor Acosta's actions by OPR. It analyzes whether federal victim notification laws (CVRA/VRRA) applied to state court proceedings and concludes that Acosta's deferral of victim notification to the State Attorney's Office did not constitute professional misconduct. Legal citations and quotes from individuals involved are provided to support the analysis.
DOJ-OGR-00023230.tif
This document outlines victim's rights under the CVRA and VRRA, including amendments made in 2015. It details the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) 2005 informal guidance on the definition of a 'crime victim' in the context of the Epstein investigation, stating that victim status commences with a complaint and ends if no indictment or prosecution occurs. The guidance was summarized in a 2010 Memorandum Opinion by Deputy Assistant Attorney General John E. Bies.
DOJ-OGR-00021458.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) investigation concludes that prosecutors in the Epstein case did not commit professional misconduct by failing to notify victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The OPR's reasoning is that in 2007, when the non-prosecution agreement was signed, the Department of Justice's interpretation was that CVRA rights only attached after federal charges were filed, a standard which was not met. Although finding no misconduct, the report notes that the lack of consultation with victims reflected poorly on the Department and contradicted its mission.
DOJ-OGR-00023279.jpg
This document is page 241 of a DOJ report discussing the legal interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) between 2010 and 2011. It details the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) determination that victim rights do not 'vest' until formal criminal charges are filed, a stance maintained in the 2011 Guidelines revision despite Senator Jon Kyl's argument that this conflicted with the Act's plain language. The text highlights the friction between internal DOJ policy regarding pre-indictment plea negotiations and the legislative intent of the CVRA.
DOJ-OGR-00023231.jpg
This document page (193) details the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) legal interpretation that rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) formally commence upon the filing of a complaint, as that establishes a 'Federal offense.' It also outlines the 2005 Attorney General Guidelines, which assigned the responsibility of identifying and notifying victims during the 'investigation stage' to the FBI Special Agent in Charge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016534.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review discussing the enforcement of public corruption laws, highlighting the federal government's aggressive role compared to state efforts. It details the Justice Department's Public Integrity Section and the FBI's prioritization of corruption cases, noting that federal enforcement often targets broad interpretations of misconduct like "honest services" fraud. The footnotes provide citations related to the Crime Victims' Rights Act and various case laws concerning prosecutorial discretion and victim rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017629.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal article (likely by David Schoen, produced to House Oversight) analyzing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victim Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA). It specifically critiques the Department of Justice's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, noting that on June 7, 2007—months before the non-prosecution agreement—Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafana sent a letter to Jane Doe #1 confirming the investigation and asserting she had specific rights, including the right to confer with prosecutors. The text argues this proves the DOJ initially believed CVRA rights applied pre-charging, only to reverse its position later during litigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017628.jpg
This document contains page 25 of a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped with a House Oversight Bates number. It analyzes the Department of Justice's policies regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA), specifically debating when victim rights attach (pre-charging vs. post-charging). It cites correspondence between Senator Kyl and the DOJ (Ronald Weich) and references FBI statistics from Fiscal Year 2011 regarding victim services.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017624.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law review article or legal brief authored or submitted by David Schoen) criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that the OLC incorrectly limits the definition of 'prosecution' under the Sixth Amendment, thereby restricting when victims can assert their rights. The document was produced as evidence for the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017623.jpg
This document is page 20 of a legal text (likely a law journal article from the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the footer 'DAVID SCHOEN'. The text heavily critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the OLC's 'contorted position' that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed. It argues that this interpretation renders the statutory words 'detection' and 'investigation' meaningless and conflicts with standard definitions of when a prosecution begins.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017622.jpg
This document is page 19 of a legal text (likely a law review article or legal memorandum by David Schoen) produced to the House Oversight Committee. It critiques an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memo, arguing that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply before criminal charges are filed to prevent 'secondary victimization.' The text specifically cites the 'Epstein case' (Does v. United States, S.D. Fla. 2011) as a legal precedent where the court ruled that the CVRA contemplates pre-charge application.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017621.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped by the House Oversight Committee and bearing David Schoen's name. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) narrow interpretation that victim rights only attach after charges are filed. It contends that victims should have rights during plea negotiations and pre-charging stages, citing Department of Justice guidelines and the statutory purpose.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017620.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) likely submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that the OLC ignored Senator Kyl's intent that victim rights apply before charges are filed. The text specifically cites the 'Epstein case' as a notable example where the OLC's interpretation allowed a non-prosecution agreement to nullify victims' rights to be heard.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017619.jpg
This document is a page from a legal text (likely a law journal or brief submitted by David Schoen) analyzing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) narrow interpretation that victims' rights only attach after charges are filed, citing a 2011 letter from Senator Jon Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder where Kyl clarifies that rights were intended to exist pre-indictment. The text criticizes the OLC for deceptively quoting legislative history to support their position.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017618.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee, likely by attorney David Schoen. It presents a legal argument criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) memorandum for interpreting the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) too narrowly, specifically arguing that victim rights should extend to the pre-charging phase. The text cites various statutes (VRRA) and case law to support the claim that victims have rights to protection and conference with the government before formal charges are filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing or journal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding whether victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. The text analyzes and distinguishes prior case law (Turner, Paletz, Skinner), arguing that these cases do not preclude CVRA rights during the investigation phase.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017616.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing authored by David Schoen (likely representing victims in the Epstein case), produced to the House Oversight Committee. It presents a legal argument contrasting the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that the Justice Department is obligated to recognize and inform victims as soon as an investigation opens, not just after formal charges are filed. It criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that attempted to limit these protections for victims of uncharged conduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017615.jpg
This document is a page from a legal text (likely a law journal article or brief by David Schoen) submitted to the House Oversight Committee. It critiques a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum which argued that Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) rights only attach after formal criminal proceedings are initiated. The text argues this position is 'unpersuasive' and 'disingenuous' because the DOJ routinely identifies victims earlier, such as during grand jury investigations or under the VRRA of 1990.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017606.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis or journal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) included in a House Oversight production, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen. It argues for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) during the investigation phase, before formal charges are filed, critiquing the DOJ/OLC position to the contrary. The text specifically cites the "Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case" as a primary example of why victim participation is necessary before charges are filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017605.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Page 2 of 31) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and whether victim rights apply before formal charges are filed. It highlights a conflict between a 2010 DOJ OLC opinion, which argued rights do not attach pre-charging, and Senator Jon Kyl, who argued they do. The text specifically uses the Jeffrey Epstein sex abuse case in Florida as a concrete example of the controversy, noting that victims argued they should have been consulted regarding his non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027295.jpg
This document contains a log of digital messages exchanged on June 16, 2018, between 'jeeitunes@gmail.com' (an alias associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and a redacted individual. The conversation focuses on high-level legal strategies involving the Department of Justice, specifically discussing the 'Yoo memo,' the precedent for withdrawing OLC opinions regarding torture, and the possibility of Rod Rosenstein taking similar action regarding the prohibition on indicting a sitting president.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012122.jpg
This document is a page from a transcript of a telephone interview with Virginia Roberts regarding the case Edwards adv. Epstein. In the interview, Roberts states there were definitely more than one hundred underage girls involved with Jeffrey Epstein and describes how he bought her expensive clothing from brands like Gucci and Chanel. She further details role-playing activities involving costumes, specifically schoolgirl outfits facilitated by Ghislaine Maxwell.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023361.jpg
This document is a 2012 Appellate Brief filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It lists numerous attorneys representing the Plaintiffs-Appellants and includes a Corporate Disclosure Statement detailing the corporate structures and name changes of various entities involved, primarily related to Cantor Fitzgerald and BGC Partners. The document bears a House Oversight Committee stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023361), suggesting it was part of a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014076.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (2014) analyzing Crime Victims' Rights (CVRA) and is part of a House Oversight Committee production. It specifically critiques the Department of Justice's handling of the Epstein case, noting that while the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office initially notified victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) of their rights in June 2007, the Department later 'reversed course' regarding the applicability of the CVRA during litigation. The text highlights a specific letter from Assistant U.S. Attorney A. Marie Villafaña to a victim sent months before the nonprosecution agreement was signed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity