David Schoen
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Legal representative |
14
Very Strong
|
23 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
12
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Submitter recipient |
11
Very Strong
|
9 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Submission |
11
Very Strong
|
7 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Document production |
10
Very Strong
|
11 | |
|
person
IG (Inspector General)
|
Friend |
9
Strong
|
2 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
9
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Friend |
7
|
3 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Production submission |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Submission of evidence |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Paul G. Cassell
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Submission involvement |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey E. (Epstein)
|
Correspondents |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Unknown |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
LexisNexis
|
Subscriber user |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein Case
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Investigative subject witness |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Document custodian subject of inquiry |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Investigation target witness |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Document producer |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
OLC
|
Adversarial critical |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
The IG
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Sean Hannity
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Investigation subject provider |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
House Oversight Committee
|
Subject of investigation provider of documents |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Meeting between David Schoen and Lefkowitz regarding a prospective client. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-03-22 | N/A | Email sent regarding a Tea Party Pac article. | Internet | View |
| 2019-02-28 | N/A | David Schoen conducted a LexisNexis search for legal materials regarding 'cvra and sixth amendment'. | Unknown | View |
| 2019-02-28 | N/A | David Schoen performed a LexisNexis search for legal articles regarding the Crime Victims' Rights... | N/A | View |
| 2019-02-28 | N/A | Legal research conducted by David Schoen. | N/A | View |
| 2016-06-01 | N/A | Proposed meeting between Jeffrey Epstein and David Schoen. | Unknown | View |
| 2007-01-01 | N/A | Publication of Law Review Article | Utah | View |
| 2005-01-01 | N/A | Publication of BYU Law Review article | Unknown | View |
| 2002-01-01 | N/A | State v. Casey court case | Utah | View |
| 2001-01-01 | N/A | United States v. Fortier decision | Tenth Circuit | View |
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017761.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal frameworks for appointing counsel for crime victims (specifically children and those facing potential charges) and proposes rules for victims' rights to be heard regarding a defendant's release from custody. It cites the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and various U.S. Codes regarding funding and legal authority.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017760.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the inherent power of courts to appoint counsel for indigent victims. It cites various legal precedents (such as Bothwell v. Republic Tobacco Co.) to argue that victims require legal representation to ensure a fair process, as neither prosecutors nor defendants prioritize victim rights. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted by Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) as part of congressional inquiries or legal arguments regarding victim representation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017759.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 45 of a larger 52-page submission) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing 'Rule 44.1' regarding the discretionary appointment of counsel for victims. It argues that while the CVRA does not mandate counsel, federal courts possess the inherent authority to appoint it in the interests of justice. The document includes extensive footnotes citing relevant case law and concludes with the name of attorney David Schoen (a known Epstein attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a submission to Congress regarding the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017758.jpg
This document discusses the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) regarding victim notification, resentencing, and attendance at trials, particularly in cases with multiple victims like the Oklahoma City bombing. It outlines proposed rules for handling victim rights when large numbers make standard procedures impracticable and addresses the victim's right to be heard on issues directly affecting them. Extensive footnotes provide legal citations and commentary on relevant statutes and case law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017757.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and 'Proposed Rule 43.1(b)' regarding court procedures when a victim is not notified of proceedings. It argues that conducting trials or sentencings without notifying the victim violates the CVRA. The document bears the name of Epstein attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal reference material or evidence regarding the violation of Epstein's victims' rights under the CVRA during the congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017756.jpg
This document is page 42 of 52 from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (vol. 835) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and its interaction with Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure (specifically Rule 615 and Rule 43). The text argues for explicit procedural rules to protect a victim's right to attend trials, referencing the Oklahoma City bombing trial as a failure of the previous system. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Jeffrey Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a legal file produced during congressional investigations into the handling of the Epstein case, likely regarding the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017755.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on a victim's right to attend court proceedings and be heard. The text analyzes the rationale behind allowing victims to be present during trials and cites various state constitutions and federal rules (Rule 615). The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal research or an exhibit in proceedings related to the investigation of the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, likely concerning the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017754.jpg
This document is page 40 of 52 from a legal text, specifically citing the 2005 BYU Law Review, discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It proposes amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 32 and 43.1 to expand victims' rights regarding sentencing recommendations and attendance at trials. The document bears the name David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017753.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 39 of 52 in the exhibit), stamped with a House Oversight Bates number and the name David Schoen. It outlines Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding sentencing hearings, specifically focusing on the handling of objections to presentence reports and the rights of victims to be heard and participate in the process. The text emphasizes that victims have rights independent of the government or the defendant.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017751.jpg
This document is page 37 of 52 from a legal filing, specifically an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues for victims' rights to access presentence reports and be heard at sentencing, countering arguments made by the 'Practitioners' Group' (defense attorneys). The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen at the bottom and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017750.jpg
This page from a law review article discusses the rights of crime victims to access presentence reports under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to ensure accurate restitution. The author recounts their testimony before the Sentencing Commission and counters arguments from the Practitioners' Advisory Group, which opposed victim access to these reports. The text argues that legislative history supports broad rights for victims to be heard and informed.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017749.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that victims should have access to presentence reports to meaningfully participate in sentencing hearings, citing statements by Senators Feinstein and Kyl. The document appears to be an exhibit submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017748.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and federal sentencing procedures. It details the rights of victims to access presentence reports and be heard regarding sentencing guidelines, citing Senator Kyl and various legal precedents. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as a legal exhibit or research material during congressional inquiries related to the Epstein case (Schoen was one of Epstein's attorneys).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017746.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen, appearing to be part of a House Oversight investigation. It contains an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32. The text argues that probation officers should be required to seek out victim information for presentence reports and quotes Senator Kyl to support the argument that victims have a broad right to be heard in person during sentencing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017745.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal text (likely a law review article from 2005 BYU Law Review) discussing amendments to Federal Rule 32(c)(1)(B) regarding presentence investigation reports and restitution for victims. It analyzes the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), arguing that courts should receive restitution information even when restitution is discretionary ('permits') rather than just mandatory ('requires'). The document bears the name 'David Schoen' (Jeffrey Epstein's attorney) at the bottom and a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to Congress.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017744.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed changes to Federal Rule 32 regarding the definition of a 'victim' and the procedures for waiving a jury trial. It argues that victims should be heard before a court approves a non-jury trial. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' (an attorney known for representing Jeffrey Epstein) at the bottom and includes a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of evidence or materials reviewed by the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017743.jpg
This document proposes an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, suggesting that courts must consider the views of victims before approving a waiver of a jury trial. It provides the text of the proposed rule change and a rationale based on the public interest in jury trials, supported by legal citations and Supreme Court precedents. The page also contains extensive footnotes referencing relevant case law and legal scholarship.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017742.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 28 of a 52-page production) included in a file by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee. The text outlines legal arguments regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), quoting Senator Kyl and citing case law (State v. Timmendequas) to argue that victims have a due process right to be heard, particularly regarding venue transfer decisions, to minimize their inconvenience and trauma.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017741.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review article (page 27 of 52 in the submission) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the constitutional rights of victims and the public to attend criminal trials in the local community (vicinage) under Article III, the First Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. The text argues that victims have a compelling interest in observing proceedings and should have the right to be heard regarding venue transfer decisions under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017740.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, attributed to attorney David Schoen, discussing proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 18, 20, and 21). The text argues for integrating the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) into these rules, specifically requiring courts and U.S. Attorneys to consider victims' views and objections before transferring cases between districts. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017739.jpg
This document discusses proposed legal rule changes aimed at protecting crime victims' interests regarding subpoenas and the venue of prosecution. It outlines a requirement for preliminary court screening of subpoenas to ensure relevance and reasonableness, and proposes amending Rule 18 to consider the convenience of victims when setting the place of trial. The text argues these changes protect victim privacy without infringing on the legitimate interests of the government or defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017738.jpg
This document analyzes the legal issues surrounding the subpoena of victim records without notice, using the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case as a key example. It argues that current rules fail to protect victims' privacy rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Constitution, highlighting the risks when third-party custodians release sensitive information.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017737.jpg
This document is page 23 (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017737) of a legal text, specifically from the 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review, bearing the name David Schoen. It outlines proposals and rationales for modifying Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 15 and 17 to enhance victims' rights, specifically regarding their right to attend pre-trial depositions and their right to receive notice before their confidential information is subpoenaed.
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_017734.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, seemingly authored or submitted by David Schoen, discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the obligation of prosecutors to inform the court of victim objections to plea agreements. It cites Senator Feinstein and the case *State v. Casey* (Utah 2002), in which Schoen notes he represented the victim. The document argues for a rule change requiring disclosure of victim objections in open court, relevant to the broader context of the Epstein case regarding the secret Non-Prosecution Agreement.
From Fox News - Jeffrey Epstein, registered sex offender,...
Schoen informs Epstein that Fox News is re-running an old piece about his civil settlement.
From Fox News - Jeffrey Epstein, registered sex offender,...
Schoen informs Epstein that Fox News is re-running an old piece about his civil settlement.
From Fox News - Jeffrey Epstein, registered sex offender,...
Schoen shares a Fox News article about a civil settlement, criticizes the article's framing of the NPA (Non-Prosecution Agreement), expresses a desire for 'true facts' about accusers to be published, and wishes Epstein 'Good Shabbos'.
From Fox News...
I know it was an old piece but Fox is running it again today. [Includes text of Fox News article about Epstein lawsuit settlement]
Re: From Fox News - Jeffrey Epstein, registered sex offen...
no worry how are you
From Fox News - Federal judge overseeing key lawsuit rela...
Sharing a Fox News article about the death of a federal judge involved in the Epstein lawsuit.
Re: From Fox News...
Yup
From Fox News - Federal judge overseeing key lawsuit rela...
Forwarded a Fox News article snippet and link about the death of a federal judge overseeing an Epstein lawsuit.
Mueller’s Star Witness Against Trump Once Arrested For Ch...
Schoen shares a link to a 'nut site' article that alleges the recipient is a Mueller informant, noting the political contradictions involving Acosta and Trump.
Re: Shared Article from AOL: Report: Trump aide helped se...
yes, every outlet needs a sex story
Shared Article from AOL...
Discusses media coverage, Dershowitz, and Lefkowitz. Claims the article is wrong about victims being silenced.
Re: Hello
Discusses Strzok testimony, McCabe, bias, and asks 'we're on the same team'.
No Subject
Discusses his obsession with fighting prosecutorial/FBI misconduct, mentions an article tying Jeffrey E. to #metoo and Trump, hopes Jeffrey E.'s cases are behind him, and expresses regret for not having helped.
No Subject
A short message asking 'judge jeannie?'.
No Subject
The main body of text at the top of the document. David Schoen critiques Jeannie Rhee and Greg Andres, opines on Russian election interference, and mentions his friendship with the IG.
Re: Hello
Detailed criticism of Mueller's team (Rhee, Andres), discussion of Russia election interference, and mention of being a guest on Hannity.
Re: Hello
Asks if the situation is overblown, compares it to mob prosecutors hating Gotti, asks why Strzok is different.
N/A
Discusses obsession with prosecutorial misconduct, mentions #metoo press tying Epstein to Trump, expresses regret at not being able to help Epstein legally.
Hello (inferred from reply)
A detailed critique of the Mueller investigation team, accusing members Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, and Greg Andres of past prosecutorial misconduct, withholding evidence, and having strong political biases (pro-Clinton, anti-Trump). The author expresses his obsession with fighting FBI and prosecutorial misconduct.
Re: Hello
A reply questioning if the bias described by Schoen is 'overblown'. Compares the situation to mob prosecutors having strong feelings for their targets like Gotti and asks why 'stryok' (Peter Strzok) is considered different.
Re: Hello
A lengthy criticism of the Mueller team's composition, accusing members like Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, and Greg Andres of past misconduct, unethical behavior, and extreme political bias. The author also expresses his general obsession with fighting prosecutorial misconduct.
Re: Hello
A brief reply questioning if the criticism is 'overblown' and comparing the prosecutors to those who targeted 'gotti', asking why 'stryok' is different.
Re: Hello
A lengthy criticism of the Mueller team's composition, accusing members like Andrew Weissmann, Jeannie Rhee, and Greg Andres of past misconduct, unethical behavior, and extreme political bias. The author also expresses his general obsession with fighting prosecutorial misconduct.
Re: Hello
A brief reply questioning if the criticism is 'overblown' and comparing the prosecutors to those who targeted 'gotti', asking why 'stryok' is different.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity