Bryan A. Garner
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Antonin Scalia
|
Co authors |
2
|
2 |
20250728111721067_24-1073ReplyInSupportOfPetitionForWritO...
This document is a legal reply brief filed in the Supreme Court on behalf of Ghislaine Maxwell (Petitioner) against the United States, dated July 28, 2025. The brief argues that the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) signed by Jeffrey Epstein in the Southern District of Florida, which promised not to prosecute 'potential co-conspirators' in 'the United States,' should legally bind other districts like the Southern District of New York. The filing highlights a circuit split on whether US Attorneys can bind other districts and contends that the Second Circuit's decision allowing Maxwell's prosecution violates contract law and the plain text of the agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000244.tif
This document is a table of authorities, listing various legal cases and other authoritative texts. It includes case citations with court, year, and page references, along with one entry for a legal treatise co-authored by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner.
DOJ-OGR-00000223.tif
This document appears to be a section from a table of contents or bibliography, listing two legal texts. It references the U.S. Department of Justice's 'Justice Manual' from February 2018 and 'Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts' from 2012, co-authored by Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner.
DOJ-OGR-00000057.tif
This document is a legal analysis discussing principles of statutory interpretation, particularly concerning the meaning of 'United States' in plea agreements. It details how language placement in a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) informs intent, specifically noting how a co-conspirator immunity clause was severed from Epstein's immunity clause and how the NPA's terms may preclude Maxwell's prosecution.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017695.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (pages 945-946) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It analyzes the legal obligations of courts and prosecutors to consider a victim's views when dismissing charges, arguing that victims must be treated with fairness and their views heard. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal research or evidence regarding the application of the CVRA (likely in relation to Epstein's controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014050.jpg
This document is page 71 of a 2014 legal analysis (likely a law review article) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It uses the Epstein case as a primary example of why victims need rights before formal charges are filed, specifically citing how Jane Doe Number One and Two were not informed that prosecutors had secretly bargained away sex offense charges. The text argues that the CVRA's plain language supports extending rights to victims throughout the criminal justice process, even before charges are filed.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity