| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Cohen
|
Judicial |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Felix Frankfurter
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | N/A | A heated exchange (possibly apocryphal) between Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter during ... | Supreme Court | View |
This document is page 13 of a legal filing arguing for the unsealing of appellate briefs related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text asserts a strong public interest in transparency to understand why the District Attorney's Office, led by DA Vance, argued for lenient treatment of Epstein. It cites various legal precedents regarding the presumption of openness in court records and mentions that Vance has faced criticism for favoring wealthy defendants.
This document appears to be a page (page 87) from a manuscript draft, likely a book on constitutional law or civil liberties (possibly by Alan Dershowitz given the context of the House Oversight production). The text analyzes the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the incorporation doctrine, and the expansion of free speech prohibitions from just 'Congress' to the entire 'government.' It references Justice Hugo Black and the case of Cohen v. the United States (referring to the 'Fuck the draft' jacket case, usually known as Cohen v. California).
This document appears to be a page (page 86) from a manuscript draft, dated April 2, 2012, bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text is a philosophical and legal essay discussing the value of dissent, analyzing the First Amendment through the lens of a debate between Justices Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter regarding the words 'Congress' and 'no.' The author (writing in the first person) expresses admiration for biblical and historical figures who challenged authority.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity