Meg Garvin
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
AUSA Villafaña
|
Professional |
1
|
1 |
010-06.pdf
This document is Plaintiff Virginia Giuffre's second amended supplemental response to discovery requests from Defendant Ghislaine Maxwell, dated April 29, 2016. It details Giuffre's legal representation history from 2009 to 2016, listing specific attorneys and cases including actions against Jeffrey Epstein, the US Government, and Alan Dershowitz. The document also contains objections to requests for financial records regarding payments from Epstein or media organizations, asserting attorney-client privilege and irrelevance.
EFTA00013926.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by attorneys for victims (Jane Doe #1 and #2) in the Jeffrey Epstein case, arguing that the U.S. Government violated the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The filing details how the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI secretly entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement with Epstein in September 2007 while misleading victims for months that the investigation was ongoing and that federal charges were still possible. The motion requests the court to order the government to produce the full Non-Prosecution Agreement and FBI interview reports, and to schedule a hearing to determine the appropriate remedy for the violation of the victims' rights.
EFTA00013595.pdf
This document contains correspondence from attorney Brad Edwards to the U.S. Attorney's Office in July 2008 regarding the Jeffrey Epstein case. Edwards disputes the government's proposed stipulation of facts, specifically regarding when victims were notified of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement (NPA), and asserts that he and his clients were kept in the dark about the NPA while urging federal charges. The attached July 3rd letter formally requests federal prosecution, characterizing Epstein as a prolific predator who abused over 100 girls, arguing that the state plea deal was grossly inadequate.
EFTA00013570.pdf
This document is a legal response filed on August 1, 2008, by victims of Jeffrey Epstein (Jane Doe #1 and #2) against the United States Government. The victims allege violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically that the government entered into a secret Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with Epstein in September 2007 without conferring with them and actively misled them into believing a federal investigation was ongoing. The filing requests the court to order the production of the NPA and an FBI interview report, and to schedule a hearing to determine remedies for the violation of the victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017715.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2005 law review article by Paul G. Cassell titled 'Recognizing Victims in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure'. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) of 2004 and proposes amendments to federal rules to better integrate victims into criminal proceedings. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp and the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' in the footer, suggesting it is part of a production related to congressional oversight, likely involving the Epstein case where the CVRA was a central legal issue.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017636.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2007 Utah Law Review article by Paul G. Cassell regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure are insufficient to protect victims. The document was likely produced by attorney David Schoen (whose name appears in the footer) to the House Oversight Committee, as indicated by the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017636'. This is relevant to the Epstein case as the CVRA was the central statute invoked regarding the failure to notify victims of Epstein's non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017604.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2014 legal article published in the Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, co-authored by Bradley J. Edwards (a key attorney for Epstein victims). The article argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply during criminal investigations before charges are filed, explicitly referencing a 'notorious federal sex abuse case' (the Epstein case) where victims were deprived of rights due to the DOJ's narrow interpretation. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp and the name David Schoen, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014038.jpg
This document is the first page of a 2014 law review article titled 'Crime Victims' Rights During Criminal Investigations?' published in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology. Co-authored by Bradley J. Edwards (a prominent attorney for Epstein victims), Paul Cassell, and Nathanael Mitchell, the article argues that the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) should apply during the investigation phase, contrary to a DOJ memorandum. The text alludes to a 'notorious federal sex abuse case' (referencing the Epstein case) where victims were deprived of rights before charges were filed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity