Supreme Court
OrganizationRelationship Network
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016551.jpg
This document is the final page (42 of 42) of a 2018 Minnesota Law Review article discussing the legal theory of 'underenforcement,' particularly regarding sexual assault crimes and police violence. It compares U.S. federal oversight and local prosecution to systems in England and Canada. The text concludes that current safeguards are insufficient for marginalized victim groups. The document contains the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' at the bottom and bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was included as an exhibit in a congressional inquiry, likely related to Schoen's representation of high-profile clients.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026479.jpg
This document appears to be an excerpt from a legal argument or opinion piece included in House Oversight Committee files (stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026479). It argues that the Mueller investigation is invalid ('fruit of a poisonous tree') because it stemmed from the 'Crossfire' investigation, which the author claims was politically motivated to help Hillary Clinton and hurt Donald Trump. The text cites several Supreme Court cases (U.S. v. Russell, Blackledge v. Perry, Young v. U.S., Williams v. Pennsylvania) to argue that due process is violated when prosecutorial efforts are motivated by bias or vindictiveness. **Note:** While the user prompt asks for 'Epstein-related' analysis, this specific page contains no mention of Jeffrey Epstein; it focuses exclusively on the Trump-Russia investigation and FBI conduct.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017749.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that victims should have access to presentence reports to meaningfully participate in sentencing hearings, citing statements by Senators Feinstein and Kyl. The document appears to be an exhibit submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of the investigation into the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights under the CVRA.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017744.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed changes to Federal Rule 32 regarding the definition of a 'victim' and the procedures for waiving a jury trial. It argues that victims should be heard before a court approves a non-jury trial. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' (an attorney known for representing Jeffrey Epstein) at the bottom and includes a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of evidence or materials reviewed by the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017743.jpg
This document proposes an amendment to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 23, suggesting that courts must consider the views of victims before approving a waiver of a jury trial. It provides the text of the proposed rule change and a rationale based on the public interest in jury trials, supported by legal citations and Supreme Court precedents. The page also contains extensive footnotes referencing relevant case law and legal scholarship.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017741.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 B.Y.U. Law Review article (page 27 of 52 in the submission) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the constitutional rights of victims and the public to attend criminal trials in the local community (vicinage) under Article III, the First Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. The text argues that victims have a compelling interest in observing proceedings and should have the right to be heard regarding venue transfer decisions under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017738.jpg
This document analyzes the legal issues surrounding the subpoena of victim records without notice, using the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case as a key example. It argues that current rules fail to protect victims' privacy rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and the Constitution, highlighting the risks when third-party custodians release sensitive information.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017236.jpg
This page appears to be a draft of a book chapter (Chapter 10) dated April 2, 2012, discussing legal theories of defamation and the First Amendment. The author, writing in the first person, identifies themselves as a former law clerk for Supreme Court Justice Goldberg during the 1964 *New York Times v. Sullivan* decision. The text analyzes the evolution of defamation laws regarding race, sexual preference, and public figures, noting Goldberg's concerns about the 'actual malice' standard.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016790.jpg
This document appears to be a printout of an online news feed or article footer. It contains two headlines: one regarding a Supreme Court decision written by Adam Liptak for the New York Times, and another announcing Jony Ive's departure from Apple (dating the content to roughly June 2019). The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp but contains no visible text directly referencing Jeffrey Epstein or his associates on this specific page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016789.jpg
This document appears to be a printout of a news article or email alert discussing Supreme Court rulings from June 2019 regarding gerrymandering and the census. The majority of the page is blank due to image display errors (indicated by standard placeholder text), leaving only the headline and a House Oversight Bates number visible.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016787.jpg
This document is a printout of an automated email newsletter from Flipboard sent to the email address 'jeevacation@gmail.com' on June 29, 2019. The email contains headlines about the 2020 Democratic debates and Supreme Court rulings. The document bears the Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016787, indicating its inclusion in a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017932.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (392 F.Supp.2d 539) concerning the September 11 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the court's decision to prioritize personal jurisdiction discovery over subject matter jurisdiction (FSIA) for NCB to avoid intrusion into Saudi Arabia's sovereignty. The conclusion section lists rulings granting motions to dismiss for SHC, Prince Salman, and Prince Naif, while denying others.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017858.jpg
This document is page 793 of a legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) from the S.D.N.Y. regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) and rules that alleged money laundering or charitable contributions by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Prince Sultan, and Prince Turki do not constitute 'commercial activity' that would strip them of sovereign immunity. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, indicating it was part of a document production for a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017856.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 legal opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the 'In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation. It discusses legal tests for sovereign immunity under the FSIA, specifically analyzing whether entities like the KDIC (Korea) and PIF (Saudi Public Investment Fund) qualify as organs of a foreign state or political subdivisions. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' bates stamp, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee, likely related to investigations into foreign financial ties or the 9/11 litigation itself, though no specific mention of Jeffrey Epstein appears on this page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017853.jpg
This document is page 788 from a legal opinion in the Federal Supplement (349 F.Supp.2d) discussing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). It addresses whether immunity extends to Prince Sultan and Prince Turki of Saudi Arabia for actions taken in their official capacities. The text references a complaint filed on September 10, 2003, where plaintiffs argued Prince Turki was not entitled to immunity because he was serving as the Ambassador to the UK at the time. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.
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_017689.jpg
This document is page 54 of 78 from a submission to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of Epstein's attorney, David Schoen. The content is a reproduction of a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on victim impact statements, sentencing guidelines, and the split between different Circuit courts regarding notice requirements for upward departures in sentencing. This legal context is highly relevant to the Epstein case, as the violation of CVRA rights (failure to notify victims of the plea deal) was a central point of contention in the scrutiny of his Non-Prosecution Agreement.
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_017672.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various case precedents (such as State v. Percy and Brady v. Maryland) to argue that criminal defendants do not have a general constitutional right to discovery, particularly regarding the private mental health records of victims. The text emphasizes that 'mere hope' of finding favorable evidence is insufficient for a subpoena.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017667.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 32 of 78 in the production), produced by David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the legal and ethical arguments against 'ex parte' subpoenas, arguing they are unfair to victims and violate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that victims should have notice and the right to be heard before their confidential information is turned over to the defense, citing ABA standards and Supreme Court precedent.
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_017599.jpg
The document appears to be a composite of notes or a draft correspondence from a House Oversight file (stamped 017599). It begins by detailing a legal complaint (McGuire v. IBM) alleging a cover-up and child exploitation involving the Gunther family and IBM, before transitioning into a letter addressed to the Washington Post criticizing Kenneth Starr. The author attacks Starr's credibility by highlighting his legal representation of Blackwater regarding the Fallujah ambush and his role as attorney for 'convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein.'
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017585.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a contact list or attendee bio sheet, marked with 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017585', suggesting it is part of a congressional investigation. It lists high-profile individuals from finance, technology, politics, and academia, including Henry Kravis (KKR), Garry Kasparov, and Neal Katyal, along with their professional titles and board memberships. The formatting suggests these individuals were people of interest, potential invitees to a conference, or contacts maintained by the subject of the investigation (Epstein).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017388.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz, given the biographical details and the Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT') discussing the author's views on the Constitution, religion, and the Pledge of Allegiance. It recounts a personal anecdote from 1970 where the author's son, Elon, misunderstood the phrase 'under God' as 'under guard' due to a Boston accent while the family was living in California. The text explores the legal and philosophical implications of the Establishment Clause and religious tests.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017386.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or essay (likely by Alan Dershowitz given the 'rights come from wrongs' phrasing and House Oversight context) dated April 2, 2012. The text discusses the author's evolving views on affirmative action, noting that while they originally opposed race-based decisions, experience has shown it produced positive results without the feared negative impact on Jewish admissions. The author argues that WASP admissions decreased instead, and concludes that while means may change, the goal of equality remains constant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity