D.C. Cir.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
DOJ-OGR-00002302(1).jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, filed on January 25, 2021. It serves as an index, listing the legal precedents—including court cases, federal statutes, state law, and constitutional provisions—that are cited in the associated legal brief. The authorities listed are used to support the arguments made in the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00022065.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 24, 2020. It lists numerous legal cases that are cited as precedent within the main document, along with the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases span from 1963 to 2020 and involve various parties, including individuals, non-profit organizations, and multiple U.S. government agencies, across different federal court jurisdictions.
DOJ-OGR-00022042.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a broad interpretation of the prosecution's 'Brady obligations.' It asserts that the government must disclose not only admissible favorable evidence but any information that could lead to such evidence, resolving any doubts in favor of disclosure to the defense. The document cites several legal precedents, including Safavian and Paxson, to support the claim that the pretrial standard is simply whether evidence is favorable, not whether it would change the trial's outcome.
DOJ-OGR-00022026.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing in case 1:19-cr-00830-AT, filed on April 9, 2020. It lists numerous court cases used as legal precedent, with the majority being criminal cases where the 'United States' is a party against various individuals. The cases cited span from 1963 to 2007 and originate from various federal courts across the country.
DOJ-OGR-00021336.jpg
This legal document from an Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report analyzes the decision by former U.S. Attorney Acosta to use a non-prosecution agreement (NPA) to resolve the federal investigation into Jeffrey Epstein. OPR concluded that Acosta did not commit misconduct, as there was no clear and unambiguous statute or policy in the U.S. Attorneys' Manual (USAM) that prohibited the use of an NPA in circumstances like Epstein's, where it was not in exchange for cooperation. The document affirms the broad discretion prosecutors hold in making such decisions.
DOJ-OGR-00021116.jpg
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) dated February 28, 2023. It argues that the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283 (regarding the statute of limitations for child abuse offenses) applies only prospectively, not retroactively. The argument relies on the 'Landgraf' test and linguistic analysis of the words 'would' and 'shall' as future-tense indicators, citing various legal precedents.
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00008989.jpg
This legal document, part of case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, argues that the Court possesses the authority to release the sealed Jury Questionnaire and voir dire testimony of Juror 50. It cites multiple legal precedents to establish that such a release is permissible but is subject to a balancing test, weighing public access against juror privacy, security, and potential harassment. The document emphasizes that any limitations on access to these materials must be narrowly defined and justified by a demonstrated need.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369.jpg
This document appears to be page 9 of a legal brief or research document (indicated by the Westlaw footer and Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023369) listing a Table of Authorities. It cites numerous legal cases primarily related to terrorism, banking liability, and civil procedure, including 'United States v. Bin Laden' and 'Weiss v. Nat'l Westminster Bank PLC'. While titled under 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001', the document originates from a House Oversight Committee production, likely related to investigations into financial institutions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023366.jpg
This document is a page from a Table of Authorities, likely from a legal brief or court opinion related to litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (specifically 2012 WL 257568). It lists various legal precedents (case law) alphabetically from 'Abrahams' to 'Chambers', including high-profile cases such as 'Ashcroft v. Iqbal' and several cases involving 'Obama' regarding detainees. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, though the page itself contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022315.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, discussing a proposed rule from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the Board's response to public comments. Various business associations and law firms raised concerns about the compliance costs and economic impact on small businesses, particularly regarding legal fees and requirements for electronic notice posting. Despite the user's prompt, this document has no discernible connection to Jeffrey Epstein; it is a regulatory document concerning U.S. labor law.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022310.jpg
This document is a page from the Federal Register, dated August 30, 2011, containing a legal argument against a new National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) rule. The author contends that the NLRB exceeded its statutory authority by mandating that employers post a notice of employee rights, arguing that Congress did not delegate this specific 'gap-filling' power and that failure to post does not constitute an 'unfair labor practice' under the existing framework of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The document cites numerous court cases and legislative history to support the position that the NLRB's rule is an overreach.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity