Fifth Circuit
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015-01-01 | Legal finding | The Fifth Circuit court in United States v. Dierl found that 18 USC §3283's description of offens... | Fifth Circuit | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Fifth Circuit decision in In re Dean. | Texas | View |
EFTA00027153.pdf
This document is an email chain between Assistant United States Attorneys in the Southern District of New York dated August 15-16, 2019. The subject matter concerns 'MCC/Epstein - Prior 1001 Prosecution,' involving the research and sharing of case law (charging instruments from the Northern District of Texas and a Fifth Circuit opinion) relevant to the Epstein case. The thread includes professional legal exchange followed by casual banter between colleagues about being 'replaced' or 'besties.'
EFTA00026434.pdf
This document is a Law360 Public Policy email newsletter from April 4, 2019, summarizing various legal and political developments. Key topics include Senate rule changes for judicial nominees, the release of the Mueller Report, and a budget hearing where Labor Secretary Alex Acosta defended his handling of the Jeffrey Epstein sex crime case. The newsletter also covers antitrust cases, environmental rulings, and the 'Varsity Blues' college admissions scandal court appearances.
EFTA00014454.pdf
This document is an email forwarding a Law360 article dated May 2, 2019. The article details Labor Secretary Alex Acosta's testimony before a House Committee, where he defended his previous actions as a U.S. Attorney regarding the lenient non-prosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein. The article notes that Judge Kenneth Marra recently ruled that Acosta violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act, though Acosta claimed he followed DOJ protocol. The report also covers Acosta's comments on labor regulations, including overtime rules and the minimum wage.
DOJ-OGR-00023267.tif
This document discusses the application of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) rights, referencing a federal prosecution related to a 2005 BP oil refinery explosion where victim notification was initially bypassed. It also details how, in June 2008, victims like Wild and Villafaña sought legal representation from Bradley Edwards to understand the federal criminal case against Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting communications and the role of OPR in investigating such interactions.
DOJ-OGR-00018347.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed Aug 10, 2022) discussing the admissibility of photographic evidence of a massage room. The court rules that structural features like bookcases are admissible to corroborate the witness 'Jane's' testimony regarding the room's layout, but moveable objects like pictures on the wall must be redacted because Jane did not recall them and they risk prejudice. The text references 'Jane' testifying that she was abused in that room.
DOJ-OGR-00001748.jpg
This document is page 2 of a court order filed on September 2, 2020, in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN. The court denies the defendant's request to modify a protective order that was previously entered on July 30, 2020. The court's decision is based on the original agreement between the parties, which stipulated that discovery materials provided by the government would be used solely for the defense of the current criminal case and not for any civil proceedings.
DOJ-OGR-00000932.jpg
This legal document page (dated April 1, 2021) argues that the government lacks any contemporaneous documentary evidence (emails, texts, police reports) to corroborate allegations against Ghislaine Maxwell regarding conduct between 1994 and 1997. The defense asserts that Maxwell is being prosecuted as a 'substitute' for Jeffrey Epstein following his 'inexplicable death' at the MCC, noting that she was not named in Epstein's original indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021197.jpg
This document is a table of contents from a legal filing, outlining a timeline of events from September 2007 to June 2008 related to the federal investigation of Epstein. It details the actions of the USAO, FBI, defense attorneys, and individuals like Acosta and Villafaña concerning a non-prosecution agreement (NPA), victim notification procedures, and Epstein's eventual state guilty plea on June 30, 2008. The document highlights the complex legal maneuvering and ongoing investigative efforts by both the prosecution and defense during this critical period.
DOJ-OGR-00021114.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on Feb 28, 2023. It argues primarily against the retroactive application of the PROTECT Act (specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3283 regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse). The text cites legal precedents (Diehl, Coutentos) to argue that the District Court erred in its interpretation of the statute's retroactivity concerning the April 2003 amendment.
DOJ-OGR-00019259.jpg
This document is a court order denying the Defendant's request to modify a protective order in a criminal case. The original order, entered on July 30, 2020, restricted the use of discovery materials provided by the Government solely for the defense of the current criminal action. The court's decision upholds this restriction, preventing the Defendant from using the documents for any other purpose.
DOJ-OGR-00016751.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The text records a judge providing legal guidance regarding the admissibility of prior inconsistent statements and extrinsic evidence under Rule 613(b). The judge cites specific case law (Almonte, Leonardi) to explain that law enforcement notes generally do not prove inconsistency unless the witness subscribed to them or the interviewing officer is called as a witness.
DOJ-OGR-00008982.jpg
This document is page 3 of 13 from a legal filing (Document 609) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on February 24, 2022. It is a Table of Authorities listing various legal precedents (case law). The cases cited largely pertain to press access, public trials, and the sealing of judicial documents (e.g., Associated Press, Press-Enterprise Co.), suggesting the filing relates to transparency issues or the unsealing of evidence in the Maxwell trial.
DOJ-OGR-00003013.jpg
This page is from a legal filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The Government argues that the Defendant failed to prove the Indictment was delayed for an improper purpose. The text discusses the legal standards for pre-indictment delay, citing Supreme Court and Circuit precedents, and rejects the Defendant's request for a 'balancing test' regarding prejudice.
DOJ-OGR-00005218.jpg
This document is page 13 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. It presents legal arguments regarding jury selection (voir dire), specifically arguing that defense attorneys should be allowed to question jurors directly due to the case's complexity and the high risk of prejudice from extensive pretrial publicity. The text cites legal precedents (United States v. Ible, United States v. Davis, Silverthorne v. United States) to support the necessity of thorough examination to ensure impartial jurors.
DOJ-OGR-00005217.jpg
This document is page 12 of a legal filing (Document 342) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on October 13, 2021. The text presents a legal argument advocating for attorney-conducted voir dire (jury selection questioning), citing that attorneys possess more in-depth knowledge of the case nuances than the presiding judge. It references legal precedents from the Fifth Circuit and scholarly articles to support the claim that counsel must be allowed to probe jurors for hidden prejudices.
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing legal arguments regarding statutes of limitations and definitions of sexual abuse. The author critiques the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 18 USC statutes (specifically §3283, §3509, and §2251), arguing that procedural rules and statutes of limitations are not comparable and citing various case law precedents to support the argument. It concludes with a note about Biden's 1990 Senate bill S. 1965.
DOJ-OGR-00005185.jpg
This document is a handwritten page from a legal filing in the case USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed in October 2021. The text contains legal arguments regarding statutory interpretation, specifically concerning definitions of 'sexual abuse' and 'exploitation,' and argues for the application of 'repose' (statute of limitations) based on Supreme Court precedents like *Lockhart*, *Toussie*, and *McElvain*. It criticizes the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of these statutes.
DOJ-OGR-00005184.jpg
This handwritten legal note analyzes the interpretation of 18 USC §3283, focusing on the definitions of 'sexual abuse' and 'exploitation'. It discusses the Fifth Circuit's 2015 decision in United States v. Dierl, where the court used a broader definition of sexual abuse from 18 USC §3509 to include exploitation. The author notes this legal 'work around' creates a superfluity issue, referencing the 1995 case United States v. Bailey.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017735.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text discusses legal precedents and statutes (specifically the CVRA and state laws in Utah, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas) regarding a prosecutor's ethical obligation to inform the court of a victim's request to be heard during plea bargain proceedings. This is likely part of an argument regarding the violation of victims' rights in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017663.jpg
This document is page 28 of a legal filing (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017663) submitted by attorney David Schoen (known for representing Jeffrey Epstein). The text is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and arguing that victims should have the right to attend pretrial depositions under Rule 15, drawing parallels to the rights guaranteed to criminal defendants. It cites various legal precedents to support the argument that excluding victims from such proceedings is unfair and unauthorized.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017627.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (likely the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) submitted as evidence to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the timeline of the Epstein investigation between 2006 and 2007, detailing how the Palm Beach Police referred the case to the FBI, who then referred it to the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida. The text argues that under proper application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), victims should have been notified and allowed to confer with prosecutors regarding the nonprosecution agreement eventually reached with Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017614.jpg
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017613.jpg
This document appears to be Page 10 of a legal filing or article (Excerpt from 104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 59) submitted by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically citing the 'In re Dean' (BP Products) case to argue that victims have rights to confer with the government before charges are formally filed or plea deals are reached. While Epstein is not named on this page, the legal argument mirrors the controversy surrounding the failure to notify victims during Epstein's 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity