This document is page 3 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330) addressed to Judge Paul Engelmayer, dated August 6, 2025. It argues for strict protocols and heightened caution regarding the unsealing of grand jury materials to protect the privacy and safety of Epstein and Maxwell's victims, citing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 6(e). A significant footnote highlights that several victims have already died by suicide or overdose and argues that a potential pardon would cause irreparable harm.
This document is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 789) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on July 22, 2025. It outlines the legal standards and 'special circumstances' under which grand jury records may be released, citing precedents like *In re Craig* and *Laws. 'Comm. for 9/11 Inquiry, Inc. v. Garland*. The text lists specific factors a district court must weigh when considering disclosure, such as the status of principals, privacy of families, and whether witnesses are still alive.
This document is Page 13 of 31 from a legal filing (Document 809) in Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on August 11, 2025. The text outlines legal standards for disclosing grand jury materials, discussing the 'special circumstances' doctrine recognized by the Second and Seventh Circuits. It provides a dense list of case citations, including precedents involving the unsealing of records related to President Nixon (Watergate) and President Clinton (1998 investigation involving a White House intern).
This document is page 5 of a court order filed on February 25, 2022, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN). The Court denies the Defendant's motion for an immediate new trial based on the current record but determines that an evidentiary hearing is necessary regarding 'Juror 50.' The document discusses the legal standards (McDonough standard, Rule 606) for post-verdict inquiries into juror misconduct, specifically addressing allegations that Juror 50 failed to disclose a history of sexual abuse during voir dire.
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law review article or legal brief authored or submitted by David Schoen) criticizing the Office of Legal Counsel's (OLC) interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues that the OLC incorrectly limits the definition of 'prosecution' under the Sixth Amendment, thereby restricting when victims can assert their rights. The document was produced as evidence for the House Oversight Committee.
This document is a page from a legal brief or opinion related to the 'In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001' litigation (2012). It argues that the District Court erred by examining evidence in isolation rather than collectively, specifically regarding allegations against Al Rajhi Bank and its executives (Saleh Abdullah Kamel and Suleiman Abdel Aziz Al Rajhi) for financing terrorism via the 'Golden Chain' list of donors. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' stamp, suggesting it was part of a Congressional investigation, possibly related to broader inquiries into bank compliance and terrorist financing, though Jeffrey Epstein is not mentioned in the text of this specific page.
This document is a page from a Westlaw printout of a 2012 legal opinion (In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) stamped with a House Oversight Committee Bates number. It details the legal standards for detaining individuals as 'part of' al-Qaeda, referencing the 'Golden Chain' document which identifies financiers such as Saleh Abdullah Kamel and Suleiman Abdel Aziz al Rajhi. The text analyzes D.C. Circuit precedents regarding habeas corpus petitions from Guantanamo Bay detainees and the evidentiary standards required to prove material support for terrorism.
This document is a page from the Federal Register dated August 30, 2011, not an Epstein-related document. It contains legal analysis by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) justifying a new rule that requires employers to post notices of employee rights under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The Board refutes arguments against the rule's validity, citing Supreme Court precedents and changing unionization rates, and compares the NLRA to other labor statutes.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity