CVRA
OrganizationRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
OLC
|
Legal representative |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Senator Kyl
|
Legislator proponent |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Kyl
|
Legislative sponsor advocate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Kyl
|
Legislative history |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Senator Kyl
|
Legislative author proponent |
5
|
1 |
EFTA00026781.pdf
This document is an email chain from 2016 (forwarded in 2018) discussing legal proceedings and media coverage regarding Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell. Key contents include a link to a Page Six article about Epstein's relationships with young women, and a discussion of legal attachments such as a complaint against Maxwell (noting Judge Sweet denied her motion to dismiss) and filings in a CVRA case. A lead attorney is added to the correspondence following a meeting.
DOJ-OGR-00023239.tif
This document details how case agents and an individual named Villafaña solicited victims' opinions on resolving the federal investigation into Epstein. It highlights that victims had varied desires, including some wanting a plea deal, some opposing prosecution, and others wanting jail time, while many expressed concerns about privacy, safety, and the impact of public disclosure on their relationships. The document also notes that Villafaña's records and memory of these interactions were sometimes insufficient for OPR to fully assess the discussions.
DOJ-OGR-00020575.jpg
This document contains several letters and orders related to the case of Ghislaine Maxwell. The orders concern victim impact statements, redactions, and contact information, while the letters are from Ghislaine Maxwell, her defense counsel, and the USA to Judge Alison J. Nathan regarding various aspects of the case, including sentencing and challenges to standing under the CVRA.
DOJ-OGR-00021478.jpg
This legal document details the conflicting accounts between federal prosecutor Villafaña and victims' attorney Edwards concerning the notification for Jeffrey Epstein's June 30, 2008 state court guilty plea. Villafaña claims she encouraged Edwards to attend but was limited in what she could disclose, while Edwards claims he was misled about the plea's scope and its impact on federal prosecution possibilities under the NPA. The document also reveals internal government discussions about the method of victim notification, ultimately delegating the task to the Palm Beach Police Department.
DOJ-OGR-00021442.jpg
This document discusses legal proceedings and agreements related to Epstein, including the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and litigation. It mentions the government's intention to provide victims with copies of the NPA and revisions to a letter in response to criticism.
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_017682.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rule 21 and Rule 23). The text argues that victims should have a say in decisions regarding venue transfers and waivers of jury trials. The document originates from the files of David Schoen (Epstein's attorney) as part of a House Oversight investigation, indicated by the footer stamps.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017679.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues that prosecutors should be required to inform the court of a victim's objection to transferring a case (Rule 20/21 transfers) and criticizes the Advisory Committee for not explicitly requiring this. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely in the context of examining the handling of the Epstein case and the violation of victims' rights.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity