Court of Appeals
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-12-03 | N/A | Scheduled oral argument for rehearing. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-08-07 | N/A | Court granted petition for rehearing en banc. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-08-07 | N/A | Court granted petition for rehearing en banc and vacated panel opinion. | 11th Circuit | View |
| 2020-04-14 | N/A | Court of Appeals denied Jane Doe 1's petition. | 11th Circuit | View |
DOJ-OGR-00002709.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Document 148) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 4, 2021. It contains legal arguments by the defense requesting the immediate disclosure of 'Brady' and 'Giglio' material (exculpatory and impeachment evidence) from the government. The defense argues that Ms. Maxwell needs this information early to prepare an effective defense, citing various legal precedents (United States v. Rodriguez, Bagley, etc.) to support the claim that impeachment evidence falls under the Brady rule.
DOJ-OGR-00002686.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing (Document 146) from the Ghislaine Maxwell case, dated February 4, 2021. The defense argues that allegations regarding 'Accuser-3' are time-barred because the statute of limitations expired before the 2003 amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, and retroactive application would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause. Furthermore, the defense contends that allegations involving Accuser-3 are irrelevant to the conspiracy charges, which should only pertain to Accuser-1 and Accuser-2.
DOJ-OGR-00005853.jpg
This document is page 70 of a legal filing (Document 397) from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330), filed on October 29, 2021. The text argues against a motion to suppress evidence, specifically regarding a 'confirmatory identification' made by 'Minor Victim-4.' The prosecution argues the identification is admissible because the victim knew the defendant by name from previous interactions, citing various legal precedents regarding independent reliability of witness identification.
DOJ-OGR-00005750.jpg
This document is page 4 of a legal filing (Document 393) dated October 29, 2021, in the case of United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. It is a motion filed by the defense to preclude law enforcement witnesses from providing expert opinion testimony, arguing that the government should be limited to its two disclosed experts, Dr. Lisa Rocchio and Steven Flately. The motion cites case law (United States v. Mejia) to argue against 'skilled witnesses' who act as both fact and expert witnesses.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016544.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103), specifically the conclusion of an article discussing prosecutorial discretion, victim rights, and federalism/state jurisdiction. It appears to be an exhibit submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee, likely to support legal arguments regarding the handling of the Epstein case, specifically concerning the non-prosecution agreement or federal/state jurisdiction issues. The text analyzes the differences between U.S. and foreign legal systems regarding the ability of victims to challenge decisions not to prosecute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026589.jpg
This document is a page from a legal or tax analysis memorandum, likely produced during a House Oversight investigation (as indicated by the Bates stamp). It details technical tax regulations regarding Disregarded Entities (DREs), Single Member LLCs (SMLLCs), and Grantor Trusts. Specifically, it discusses the 'economic risk of loss' in partnership debts, the use of DREs to manipulate debt basis, and state-level tax treatments. While no specific Epstein transactions are detailed on this page, the content describes the types of complex financial structures and tax avoidance strategies often associated with his financial network.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017735.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a legal brief or memorandum submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (indicated by the Bates stamp). The text discusses legal precedents and statutes (specifically the CVRA and state laws in Utah, Oregon, South Dakota, and Texas) regarding a prosecutor's ethical obligation to inform the court of a victim's request to be heard during plea bargain proceedings. This is likely part of an argument regarding the violation of victims' rights in the context of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017728.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 14 of 52 in the specific filing) discussing proposals to amend legal rules to incorporate the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It argues for amending Rule 2 to ensure fairness to victims and adding a Rule 10.1 regarding notice of proceedings. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney associated with Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely submitted as part of a legal argument or evidence file regarding victim rights and notification procedures in the Epstein investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017917.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (In re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001) analyzing whether the Saudi High Commission (SHC) qualifies as an organ of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and is thus entitled to foreign sovereign immunity. The text details arguments regarding SHC's status, funding sources, and structure, citing declarations from Saudi officials and legal precedents like Filler v. Hanvit Bank.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017848.jpg
This document is a page from a court opinion (349 F.Supp.2d 765) regarding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks litigation. It discusses the legal standards for jurisdictional discovery when sovereign immunity is asserted and begins detailing allegations against Prince Sultan of Saudi Arabia.
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_017650.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen (who later served as Jeffrey Epstein's attorney). The text critiques the Advisory Committee's failure to include 'victim representatives' in Proposed Rule 60, arguing it contradicts the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The document is stamped as evidence for the House Oversight Committee, likely relevant to the investigation into the handling of victims' rights in the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017648.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's name at the footer). The text analyzes the history of the Advisory Committee's amendments to Federal Criminal Rules and critiques the lack of support for crime victims' rights, specifically the failure to appoint counsel for indigent victims or clarify their role in plea processes under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It highlights the disparity between defendants, who are guaranteed counsel, and victims, who are not.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017315.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a book manuscript or legal commentary (dated April 2, 2012), likely written by Alan Dershowitz given the context of Harvard Law and debating Scalia. It critiques the US legal system's handling of 'actual innocence' claims, specifically highlighting the Jeffrey MacDonald case and the Supreme Court's stance. The text includes a 2009 challenge from the author to Justice Antonin Scalia regarding the compatibility of his constitutional views on execution with Catholic doctrine.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023409.jpg
This document is page 49 of a legal brief or court opinion titled 'In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001,' printed via Westlaw. It discusses the legal necessity of jurisdictional discovery regarding 'Sovereign Defendants' and 'NCB' (National Commercial Bank), which claims to be an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The text concludes by requesting the reversal of a lower court's dismissal of certain defendants and includes detailed footnotes referencing the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), the 9/11 Commission Report, and CIA documents concerning Usama Bin Laden and Enaam Arnaout.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023408.jpg
This document is a page from a legal brief or court opinion (sourced from Westlaw) regarding litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It argues for the reversal of dismissals for the Saudi Joint Relief Committee, Saudi Red Crescent Society, and National Commercial Bank based on the precedent set in 'Doe v. Bin Laden' regarding the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA). The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, though the text itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029306.jpg
This document provides detailed analysis of the Supreme Court's 2013 rulings in United States v. Windsor and Hollingsworth v. Perry regarding same-sex marriage and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). It explains the tax implications of striking down DOMA, specifically concerning the federal estate tax marital deduction, and summarizes Justice Kennedy's majority opinion that DOMA was unconstitutional because it violated equal protection and due process principles.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity