Skinner
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
AK
|
Professional |
5
|
1 |
DOJ-OGR-00003025.jpg
This legal document, filed on April 16, 2021, recounts events from 2016 concerning the civil litigation between Giuffre and Maxwell. It details the process of establishing a protective order for discovery materials, initiated by Maxwell's motion on March 2, 2016, contested by Giuffre's counsel (Boies Schiller), and ultimately entered by Judge Robert W. Sweet on March 18, 2016. The document also asserts that the USAO-SDNY did not open an investigation into Epstein or Maxwell in 2016 and that the government has no record of email communication between AUSA-1 and Boies Schiller attorneys after May 3, 2016.
DOJ-OGR-00005548.jpg
This document is a summary of an interview with an individual identified as 'AK' regarding a meeting held on February 29, 2016. The interview covers AK's recollections of discussions about potential charges, the Florida Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), and the extensive civil litigation involving Virginia Roberts and others. The notes mention Ghislaine Maxwell was described as a 'head recruiter' in written notes, though AK did not recall the specific attribution during the interview.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017617.jpg
This document is page 14 of a legal filing or journal article (104 J. Crim. L. & Criminology) submitted to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It argues against the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) restrictive interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically regarding whether victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. The text analyzes and distinguishes prior case law (Turner, Paletz, Skinner), arguing that these cases do not preclude CVRA rights during the investigation phase.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017616.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing authored by David Schoen (likely representing victims in the Epstein case), produced to the House Oversight Committee. It presents a legal argument contrasting the Victims' Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) with the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that the Justice Department is obligated to recognize and inform victims as soon as an investigation opens, not just after formal charges are filed. It criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that attempted to limit these protections for victims of uncharged conduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013735.jpg
This document is page 235 of a larger production by the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013735). It contains the text of a scientific paper or literature review discussing neurobiology, specifically the use of the 'D2' metric (likely correlation dimension) to analyze cardiac dynamics, neuronal activity, and EEG stages in sleep and schizophrenia. The text cites various medical and scientific studies ranging from 1985 to 1998.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014058.jpg
This document appears to be page 79 of a 2014 legal analysis or law review article, included in a House Oversight Committee production (likely related to the Epstein investigation regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act). The text analyzes the 'Paletz' and 'Skinner' cases to argue that CVRA rights should apply during investigations, not just after conviction or charging. It critiques the Department of Justice's position by citing the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, which found that limiting CVRA rights only to post-charging scenarios is inconsistent with the statute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014057.jpg
This document appears to be page 78 of a legal article or brief, likely authored by Paul Cassell (a lawyer for Epstein's victims), arguing for the application of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) prior to the filing of formal criminal charges. It explicitly criticizes a 2011 Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memorandum that sought to limit these rights. The text cites various legal precedents (Turner, Searcy) to argue that victims should be treated fairly and allowed to confer with prosecutors during the investigation phase, not just after charges are filed. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a Congressional investigation, likely into the handling of the Epstein case.
Unknown
Sent documents after the meeting.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity