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 |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014068.jpg
This document is page 89 of a 2014 legal article (likely a law review) analyzing Crime Victims' Rights, specifically critiquing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of when the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) applies. The text argues that the OLC incorrectly limits protections by claiming a complaint filing does not trigger the CVRA, and it refutes the OLC's reading of Sixth Amendment case law. The document is stamped 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014068', indicating it was gathered as evidence during the House Oversight Committee's investigation, likely regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal and the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014067.jpg
This document is page 88 of a legal text (likely a law review article by Cassell et al., Vol 104) included in a House Oversight Committee production. It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) and the Department of Justice's interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding when a 'prosecution' officially begins and when victims can assert their rights. The text argues that the OLC's narrow interpretation—that prosecution only begins at indictment rather than complaint—is 'twisted' and contradicts standard criminal procedure definitions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014066.jpg
This document is page 87 of a 2014 legal academic article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) position that victims' rights only apply after charges are filed, citing the 'Epstein case' (Does v. United States, S.D. Fla. 2011) as a precedent where the court concluded the CVRA contemplates pre-charge application. The text argues that limiting rights to the prosecution phase renders the statutory words 'detection' and 'investigation' meaningless.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014065.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a law review article (likely by Paul Cassell) included in a House Oversight Committee production regarding the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victims' rights should apply during the investigative stage (pre-charging) to prevent 'secondary victimization.' This legal argument is central to the controversy surrounding the Epstein non-prosecution agreement, where victims were not notified during the federal investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014064.jpg
This document is page 85 of a legal analysis (likely a law review article) produced for the House Oversight Committee (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014064). It argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply before formal charges are filed, specifically criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation that rights only attach post-charging. The text cites the Attorney General Guidelines and legislative intent from Senator Kyl to support the view that victims are owed fairness and consultation during the plea negotiation phase, even before a case is brought.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014063.jpg
This document is page 84 of a law review article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The authors argue that the OLC's interpretation effectively nullifies victims' rights in non-prosecution agreements, explicitly citing the 'Epstein case' as a notable example where this occurred. The footnotes highlight that the OLC opinion was released on May 20, 2011, shortly before the Government filed its response in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014062.jpg
This document page, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp, is an excerpt from a legal analysis (likely a law review article) criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that the OLC incorrectly concluded that victims' rights do not apply before an indictment is filed, contradicting the legislative intent of Senator Jon Kyl, a primary sponsor of the Act. The text highlights that even the OLC acknowledged their interpretation might contradict 'good practice' regarding pre-charging plea discussions, a critical legal issue relevant to the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement controversy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014061.jpg
This page from a legal publication (likely by Paul Cassell) critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that the OLC deceptively quoted Senator Jon Kyl to suggest victim rights only apply after charging. The text cites a June 6, 2011 letter from Senator Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder where Kyl clarifies that the CVRA was intended to provide rights to victims even before an indictment is filed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014060.jpg
This document is page 81 of a legal article or report (dated 2014) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA). It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation that victim rights only attach after judicial proceedings begin, asserting that protections should exist during the investigation phase ('suspected offender'). The document specifically critiques the OLC's definition of the word 'case.' It is part of a larger document dump related to the House Oversight Committee's investigation (likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case by the DOJ).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014059.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal analysis (likely by Paul Cassell) included in House Oversight materials (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014059). It critiques an Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the OLC's position that victim rights only apply after formal charges are filed. The text outlines specific rights that logically apply pre-charging (protection, conferencing with government attorneys, and fairness/dignity) and cites case law (US v. Rubin) and legislative history to support a broader interpretation of the Act.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
This document appears to be page 79 of a 2014 legal analysis or law review article, included in a House Oversight Committee production (likely related to the Epstein investigation regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act). The text analyzes the 'Paletz' and 'Skinner' cases to argue that CVRA rights should apply during investigations, not just after conviction or charging. It critiques the Department of Justice's position by citing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which found that limiting CVRA rights only to post-charging scenarios is inconsistent with the statute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014057.jpg
This document appears to be page 78 of a legal article or brief, likely authored by Paul Cassell (a lawyer for Epstein's victims), arguing for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to the filing of formal criminal charges. It explicitly criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that sought to limit these rights. The text cites various legal precedents (Turner, Searcy) to argue that victims should be treated fairly and allowed to confer with prosecutors during the investigation phase, not just after charges are filed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation, likely into the handling of the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014055.jpg
This document is page 76 of a legal article (Vol. 104) by Cassell et al., produced to the House Oversight Committee. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text contends that the OLC incorrectly asserts that victim rights only attach after formal charges are filed, arguing instead that the Department of Justice is required by statute (VRRA) and policy to identify victims earlier, such as during the 'target letter' phase of an investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014041.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal article (Cassell et al.) included in House Oversight records. It argues that Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) rights should attach before formal charges are filed, explicitly using the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement in Florida as a case study where victims were denied consultation because charges were not formally filed. The text critiques the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) position and references a 2011 letter from Senator Jon Kyl to Attorney General Eric Holder supporting the broader interpretation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014039.jpg
This document is page 60 of a legal article (Vol. 104) authored by Cassell et al. It contains an abstract and a Table of Contents discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The article critiques the Justice Department's interpretation of when victims' rights attach during criminal investigations, specifically using the Jeffrey Epstein case as a primary illustration of pre-charging issues.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030261.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a report or legal analysis produced by the House Oversight Committee regarding the Mueller investigation into Donald Trump. It details the dismissal of Andrew McCabe, legal theories surrounding the potential indictment of a sitting president, and the conflicting views between the Mueller team and the White House (supported by Alan Dershowitz) regarding obstruction of justice and executive privilege. While likely included in a larger dataset due to the mention of Alan Dershowitz (Epstein's former lawyer), the content focuses entirely on the 2017-2018 political and legal conflict between the Trump administration and the DOJ.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity