Judge Julian
PersonRelationship Network
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Alan Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Dershowitz
|
Legal representative |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | Legal hearing regarding the film 'I Am Curious Yellow' | Court (likely Boston) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal proceeding regarding First Amendment rights and obscenity laws. | Courtroom (implied) | View |
| N/A | N/A | Legal hearing regarding the obscenity of the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'. | Courtroom | View |
| N/A | N/A | Three days of intensive argument and questioning | Courtroom (implied Massachu... | View |
| N/A | N/A | Court hearing involving Alan Dershowitz arguing before Judge Aldrich and Judge Julian regarding o... | Courtroom (likely Federal C... | View |
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_017187.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book written by Alan Dershowitz, stamped with a House Oversight production number. It recounts a legal argument Dershowitz made before Judge Julian and Judge Aldrich regarding First Amendment protections for films, specifically involving Grove Press and the distinction between enclosed theaters and public displays of obscenity. The text includes both transcript-style dialogue and first-person narrative commentary by Dershowitz.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017186.jpg
This document appears to be a page (p. 99) from a manuscript or memoir draft written by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. It recounts a historical courtroom exchange between Dershowitz, Judge Aldrich, and Judge Julian regarding First Amendment protections for the film 'I Am Curious Yellow' and the definition of obscenity. The text focuses on legal arguments concerning whether profit motives invalidate First Amendment protections. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a document production related to investigations involving Dershowitz.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated draft 4.2.12) by Alan Dershowitz, recounting a past appellate argument regarding obscenity and First Amendment rights. The text details an exchange with Judges Aldrich and Julian where Dershowitz argues that the *Stanley v. Georgia* decision should extend to movie theaters if proper warnings (prologues) are given to the audience. The page includes a humorous anecdote about a watchmaker/mohel and a hypothetical legal argument involving a 'Pornography Shop' in Boston.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017184.jpg
This document appears to be page 97 of a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a legal argument regarding the First Amendment and the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'. The narrator describes the panel of three judges (Aldrich, Julian, Pettine) and details his arguments comparing the case to the Supreme Court's 'Stanley' decision regarding private possession of materials. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity