Senator Kyl
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Senator Feinstein
|
Business associate |
6
|
2 | |
|
organization
DOJ (Department of Justice)
|
Oversight correspondence |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Feinstein
|
Co sponsors |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CVRA
|
Legislative sponsor advocate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act)
|
Legislative sponsor interpreter |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Hatch
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CVRA
|
Legislative history |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CVRA
|
Legislator proponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
organization
CVRA
|
Legislative author proponent |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-10-09 | N/A | Congressional Record entry for statements by Senator Kyl regarding the CVRA. | US Congress | View |
| 2004-10-09 | N/A | Statement by Senator Kyl regarding victims' rights. | U.S. Senate | View |
| 2004-10-09 | N/A | Senator Kyl statement in Congressional Record | US Senate (implied) | View |
| 2004-10-09 | N/A | Statement by Senator Kyl in the Congressional Record regarding the CVRA. | US Congress | View |
| 2004-10-09 | N/A | Statement by Sen. Kyl in Congressional Record regarding CVRA. | Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Congressional statements by Senators Kyl and Feinstein regarding the CVRA. | Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Statement by Senator Kyl recorded in the Congressional Record regarding victim rights. | US Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Congressional Record entry regarding CVRA legislative history. | U.S. Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Statements by Senators Feinstein and Leahy recorded in the Congressional Record regarding the CVRA. | US Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Colloquy between Sen. Kyl and Sen. Feinstein regarding the CVRA. | U.S. Senate | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Statement by Senator Kyl in the Congressional Record regarding victims' rights. | US Congress | View |
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Statements by Senators Feinstein and Kyl in the Congressional Record regarding victims' rights. | US Senate (Congressional Re... | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Passage/Discussion of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) | US Congress | View |
| 2004-01-01 | N/A | Enactment/Legislative history of the CVRA (Public Law 108-405) | Congress | View |
EFTA00013976.pdf
This document is a legal petition filed on July 7, 2008, by attorney Brad Edwards on behalf of 'Jane Doe,' a victim of Jeffrey Epstein. The petition seeks to enforce Doe's rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically asserting that the US Attorney's Office failed to confer with her regarding ongoing plea negotiations with Epstein. The filing details that Epstein had already pleaded guilty to state charges on June 30, 2008, and argues that the federal government was on the verge of finalizing a plea deal without victim input.
DOJ-OGR-00010698.jpg
This legal document argues that victims, specifically Sarah and Elizabeth, have a right under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) to deliver in-court statements at the sentencing of the defendant, Maxwell. It cites legal precedents and legislative intent to support the importance of these "victim impact statements," asserting they are crucial for ensuring victims are heard and for determining an appropriate punishment based on the harm caused.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017763.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically the victim's right against unreasonable delay in proceedings. It cites Senators Feinstein and Kyl, along with various state statutes, to argue that delays should not occur merely for the convenience of the court or parties. The document bears the name of David Schoen (a known attorney for Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional investigation.
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_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_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_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_017728.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 14 of 52 in the specific filing) discussing proposals to amend legal rules to incorporate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues for amending Rule 2 to ensure fairness to victims and adding a Rule 10.1 regarding notice of proceedings. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as part of a legal argument or evidence file regarding victim rights and notification procedures in the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017713.jpg
This document is the final page (78 of 78) of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the legislative landscape of crime victims' rights, specifically mentioning Senator Kyl's bill and the potential need for a Constitutional amendment. It argues that Congress will likely intervene if the Advisory Committee fails to reform the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to protect victims. The document is stamped as a House Oversight exhibit (017713) and lists the name David Schoen at the bottom.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding victims' rights (CVRA). It details changes to Rules 1, 5, 12.1, 12.3, and 17 proposed by the Advisory Committee in 2007, specifically focusing on victim representation, protection during detention hearings, and subpoena notifications. The document bears the name of David Schoen, Epstein's attorney, and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of legal materials submitted to Congress regarding the handling of the Epstein case and victims' rights statutes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen, which cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues for a broad interpretation of a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings, citing legislative history from Senators Feinstein and Kyl. It proposes a new rule (Rule 60(b)) regarding the enforcement of victims' rights and preserving claimed error.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017701.jpg
This document is page 66 of 78 from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on the necessity of providing notice to victims regarding court proceedings and the funding allocated to the DOJ for notification systems. The text argues that failure to notify victims of proceedings renders their rights useless and discusses proposed rules for how courts should handle situations where a victim was not notified.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017697.jpg
This document is page 62 of a legal filing, appearing to be an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It discusses proposed amendments to Federal Rules (specifically Rule 53) to allow closed-circuit transmission of proceedings for victims and critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to adopt these changes. The document bears the name of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017688.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 53 of 78 in the exhibit) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims should have the right to be heard on disputed sentencing issues and criticizes the Advisory Committee for not explicitly granting this right. The document was likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee as part of an investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017685.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, signed or submitted by attorney David Schoen, which excerpts a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims have a broad right to be heard during sentencing proceedings, including the right to review presentence reports and make sentencing recommendations regarding Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It cites legislative history from Senators Kyl and Feinstein to support the argument that victims should be able to provide information influencing the sentence.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017679.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court of a victim's objection to transferring a case (Rule 20/21 transfers) and criticizes the Advisory Committee for not explicitly requiring this. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of examining the handling of the Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017645.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 874) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critically analyzes the 'Advisory Committee's' narrow interpretation of the Act, contrasting it with the broad legislative intent expressed by Senators Kyl and Feinstein to ensure victims are treated with fairness and due process. The document appears to be part of a production to the House Oversight Committee from the files of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein, likely relevant to arguments regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017628.jpg
This document contains page 25 of a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped with a House Oversight Bates number. It analyzes the Department of Justice's policies regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA), specifically debating when victim rights attach (pre-charging vs. post-charging). It cites correspondence between Senator Kyl and the DOJ (Ronald Weich) and references FBI statistics from Fiscal Year 2011 regarding victim services.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017624.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law review article or legal brief authored or submitted by David Schoen) criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that the OLC incorrectly limits the definition of 'prosecution' under the Sixth Amendment, thereby restricting when victims can assert their rights. The document was produced as evidence for the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017621.jpg
This document is a page from a legal article (Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology) stamped by the House Oversight Committee and bearing David Schoen's name. It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) narrow interpretation that victim rights only attach after charges are filed. It contends that victims should have rights during plea negotiations and pre-charging stages, citing Department of Justice guidelines and the statutory purpose.
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.
Questioning CVRA application before charges
Questioned why the Department was not applying the CVRA before charges were filed.
CVRA Legislative Intent
Statement regarding secondary victimization and due process.
CVRA
Statements regarding victims' independent rights.
CVRA
Statement regarding fairness and due process.
CVRA Legislative History
Statement regarding broad definition of victims.
CVRA interpretation
Statement regarding victim input on scheduling and delays.
CVRA
Statements regarding the intent of the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Legislative Intent of CVRA
Statement regarding the definition of 'reasonably heard' and victim rights at sentencing.
CVRA Legislative Intent
Statement regarding the substantive content of victims' rights.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity