D.S.C.
LocationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00021752.jpg
This document is page 10 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426, filed 07/27/2023) arguing legal precedents for 'third-party beneficiary' standing in non-prosecution and plea agreements. It cites multiple cases (*Stolt-Nielsen*, *Florida West Int'l Airways*, *El-Sadig*, *CFW Const. Co.*) to establish that individuals not explicitly named or communicated with can still be immune from prosecution if they are intended beneficiaries of an agreement between the government and another party. This legal argument is central to the defense's claims regarding the 2007 Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00021748.jpg
This document is page 6 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated July 27, 2023. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various court cases and statutes cited within the main document, along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced. The cases listed primarily involve the United States as a party against various individuals and corporations in different federal courts.
DOJ-OGR-00002980.jpg
This document is page 46 of a court filing (Document 204) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments refuting the defendant's claim that she has standing to enforce a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as a third-party beneficiary. It cites previous case law to argue that third-party standing principles from contract law do not necessarily apply to plea agreements.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017707.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 72 of 78 in the production) bearing the name of David Schoen, a lawyer known for representing Jeffrey Epstein. The text presents a legal argument regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically arguing that victim status and rights should apply even to crimes that have not yet been charged, citing Senator Kyl's legislative intent. It criticizes the NACDL's proposal for fact-finding hearings to determine victim status and argues against the Advisory Committee's limitations on victims' rights in proposed rules. The document appears to be part of an evidentiary submission to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein non-prosecution agreement and the violation of victims' rights.
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_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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity