Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017381.jpg
A page from a manuscript (likely a memoir by Alan Dershowitz) discussing the history of Jewish quotas in Ivy League admissions. It recounts the 'bagel exchange' involving Harvard Dean Chase N. Peterson and details the author's collaboration with his brother Nathan (of the American Jewish Congress) to draft an Amicus brief for the landmark *Bakke* affirmative action Supreme Court case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017379.jpg
This document appears to be a page (292) from a manuscript or book draft, identified by the header '4.2.12' and a word count. It analyzes Justice William O. Douglas's dissenting opinion regarding the equal protection clause and affirmative action, likely in the context of the *DeFunis v. Odegaard* case. The text distinguishes between evaluating applicants based on overcoming individual barriers versus racial quotas, referencing the University of Washington Law School. The document bears a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017314.jpg
A document dated April 2, 2012, appearing to be a draft page (page 227) from a book or legal manuscript. The text contrasts the progress of science (specifically DNA evidence) in exonerating the innocent with the 'regression' of the law, specifically criticizing the Supreme Court and Congress for making it difficult to reopen closed cases. The author heavily criticizes Justice Scalia's view that 'actual innocence' is not a constitutional claim if the original trial was procedurally fair.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017288.jpg
A document dated April 2, 2012, appearing to be a draft article or legal commentary regarding the case of Jonathan Doody. It discusses the reversal of Doody's conviction by the Supreme Court (often associated with the Buddhist Temple Massacre case, though not explicitly named here) and criticizes the State of Arizona for planning a retrial and setting an unattainable $5 million bail. The text argues that Doody is being denied justice despite appellate courts ruling in his favor regarding a false confession.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017265.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting the legal victory in the Tison v. Arizona death penalty case. The text details correspondence with one of the Tison brothers regarding religion and salvation. A significant footnote describes an unnamed 'sophisticated' client in federal prison who pretended to convert to Judaism weekly to access better food at Shabbat dinners.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017256.jpg
This excerpt details the legal aftermath of the Tison gang crimes, focusing on the defense attorney's efforts to save the surviving brothers from the death penalty by appealing to the Supreme Court. It discusses the application of felony murder laws and analyzes the relevance of the precedent set by *Enmund v. Florida* (1982) regarding culpability and capital punishment. The text also highlights the challenges posed by the changing composition of the Supreme Court, specifically the appointments of conservative justices like Antonin Scalia and William Rehnquist.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017252.jpg
This document is a page from a book manuscript (Chapter 12), likely written by Alan Dershowitz, discussing the legal defense of Ricky and Raymond Tison. It details the 'felony-murder' rule and the author's decision to represent the brothers pro bono in their appeal against the death penalty in Arizona. The text outlines the background of the case, where the brothers helped their father escape prison but did not personally kill anyone during the subsequent murders.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017249.jpg
This document is page 162 of a manuscript, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text appears to be written by Alan Dershowitz (identified by the claim of being the clerk who drafted the 'Rudolph' opinion for Justice Goldberg). It discusses the legal history of the death penalty for rape, specifically the backlash from the Georgia Supreme Court against federal intervention, scholarly criticism from Herbert Packer, and the subsequent formation of a litigation project by the ACLU and NAACP.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017241.jpg
This document appears to be a draft page (p. 154) from a book manuscript, likely by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. The text discusses the legal balance between First Amendment free speech rights and privacy/fair trial rights, specifically citing the author's involvement in the defense team for Senator Kennedy during the Chappaquiddick inquest. The author argues for a 'maximalist view of free speech' while acknowledging the heavy price of defamation to reputations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017237.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the specific biographical details) discussing defamation law and the First Amendment. The author recounts a personal legal battle where he was charged with criminal defamation in Turin, Italy, for criticizing a judge's ruling on terrorism during a phone interview. The text also references the 1988 Supreme Court case involving Jerry Falwell and Hustler Magazine to illustrate legal standards regarding ridicule and public figures.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017200.jpg
This document recounts a controversy at Harvard University involving the Quincy House Film Society's planned screening of the film *Deep Throat*. While initially a campus debate regarding free speech and feminist concerns, the situation escalated when the local District Attorney, John Droney, sought a legal injunction to prevent the showing, prompting the narrator to rush to court to defend the students against prior restraint.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017189.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a draft manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the context of age 31 and Grove Press) discussing First Amendment law and obscenity cases. The text analyzes the legal implications of *Stanley v. Georgia* and *Roth v. United States* regarding private possession versus public distribution of obscene material. It concludes with a personal narrative about the author achieving a legal victory for Grove Press and subsequently arguing the appeal before the Supreme Court at age 31.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book (likely by Alan Dershowitz) produced during a House Oversight investigation (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188). It recounts a legal argument Dershowitz made before Judges Julian and Aldrich concerning obscenity laws, privacy, and the 'Griswold v. Conn' precedent. Dershowitz argues that personal offense at the conduct of others is not a sufficient constitutional basis for banning that conduct, a position Judge Aldrich ultimately accepted in his decision.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017183.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated 2012) recounting the narrator's (likely Alan Dershowitz) early legal career in the late 1960s. It details his First Amendment defense of the Swedish film 'I Am Curious Yellow,' which was seized by US Customs and owned by Grove Press. The text outlines his legal strategy to challenge obscenity laws using the 'Stanley v. Georgia' precedent, comparing it to his work with Justice Goldberg.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017179.jpg
This excerpt, likely from a book by a prominent civil rights lawyer (possibly Alan Dershowitz), critiques the misuse of Justice Holmes' "shouting fire in a crowded theater" analogy in various legal contexts involving free speech. The author discusses how the analogy has been stretched to justify censorship in cases regarding pornography, hate speech (specifically the Skokie neo-Nazi march), and parody (Jerry Falwell vs. Larry Flynt).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017173.jpg
This document appears to be a page (page 86) from a manuscript draft, dated April 2, 2012, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text is a philosophical and legal essay discussing the value of dissent, analyzing the First Amendment through the lens of a debate between Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter regarding the words 'Congress' and 'no.' The author (writing in the first person) expresses admiration for biblical and historical figures who challenged authority.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017169.jpg
This document appears to be a draft of an article or speech written by a long-time Harvard Law professor (likely Alan Dershowitz, based on the '50 years' tenure mentioned and the document source). The text reflects on how the student body has diversified since the 1960s and discusses the increasing globalization of law, using a complex hypothetical case involving multiple jurisdictions to illustrate modern legal challenges. The author concludes by discussing the responsibility of teaching future leaders without propagandizing.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017157.jpg
A page from a manuscript (likely a memoir draft dated April 2, 2012) written by a Harvard Law professor. The text praises a Supreme Court Justice occupying the 'Goldberg seat' and recounts a humorous anecdote where 'Hillary' caught the author taking White House cookies for his daughter during a swearing-in ceremony.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017155.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz given the biographical details) recounting a private conversation with Judge Bazelon. The text discusses the hidden influence J. Edgar Hoover held over liberal Supreme Court Justices, specifically alleging that Justices Goldberg and Marshall cooperated with Hoover's anti-communist agenda to secure their appointments. It further alleges Hoover possessed blackmail material on both men, specifically covering up a relationship between Goldberg and a potential Russian spy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017149.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a memoir (likely Alan Dershowitz's, based on the clerkship history) dated April 2012. It recounts the author's experiences clerking for the Supreme Court in 1963, including an interview with Justice Harlan regarding anti-Semitic hiring practices on Wall Street. It also details the author disobeying Chief Justice Earl Warren's order to avoid the March on Washington, choosing instead to attend MLK's 'I Have a Dream' speech with Judge Bazelon.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017148.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, indicated by biographical details such as his son Elon and clerkships) included in House Oversight materials. The text recounts the narrator's early legal career, specifically his clerkships with Judge David Bazelon and Supreme Court Justice Arthur Goldberg. It details anecdotes regarding the narrator's Orthodox Jewish observance, including a confrontation with Simon Rifkind's law firm and accommodations made by Justice Goldberg, as well as a humorous incident involving his grandmother and young son visiting the Supreme Court.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017146.jpg
This document page appears to be an excerpt from a memoir or book manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz given the biographical details) labeled with a WC (word count) and a 2012 header date. It recounts the author's clerkship with Judge David Bazelon, discussing a specific legal case involving instructions on 'flight' (fleeing a crime scene) as evidence of guilt, citing Freud and Dostoevsky. The text highlights Bazelon's mentorship, his conflict with Judge Burger, and includes a tribute written by the author upon Bazelon's retirement in 1985.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017134.jpg
This document is a page from a memoir or manuscript (likely Alan Dershowitz's, given the specific biography of clerking for Bazelon and Goldberg). It details the narrator's time at Yale Law School, conflicts with professors due to his 'chutzpah,' and his subsequent clerkships with Judge David Bazelon and Justice Arthur Goldberg in Washington, D.C., between 1962 and 1964. The text mentions historical events such as the Cuban Missile Crisis and MLK's 'I have a dream' speech.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_027458.jpg
This document is a digital communication log from the House Oversight Committee files, dated October 24, 2018. It captures a conversation between Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias e:jeeitunes@gmail.com) and redacted individuals discussing news headlines regarding Donald Trump, Iran, the Supreme Court, and migrant caravans to be passed to an editor. The exchange concludes with Epstein inquiring about a trip to Paris involving 'FW' (possibly initials or Fashion Week).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012131.jpg
This document is page 2 of a legal letter from Kirkland & Ellis LLP to John Roth, dated June 19, 2008. The firm argues that a previous review of the Epstein case by the DOJ/CEOS was insufficient and requests a true 'de novo' review, citing recent Supreme Court decisions (*Santos* and *Cuellar*) that weaken the federal case. The letter complains that AUSA Villafana has violated the Non-Prosecution Agreement by re-initiating a grand jury investigation and subpoenaing a [redacted] individual to provide testimony and documents (photos, emails, phone records) on July 1, 2008.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity