Trove
Sign In Sign Up

Office of Legal Counsel (O.L.C.)

Organization
Mentions
38
Relationships
0
Events
9
Documents
9
Also known as:
Office of Legal Counsel
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
No relationships found for this entity.
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
2010-01-01 N/A DOJ OLC released a legal opinion arguing CVRA rights do not apply during federal criminal investi... Washington D.C. View
1992-01-01 N/A The O.L.C. issued an opinion (16 Op. O.L.C. 18) concluding that statutory provisions limiting pas... N/A View
1992-01-01 N/A The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion (16 Op. O.L.C. 18) concluding that the President ca... N/A View
1992-01-01 N/A The O.L.C. issued an opinion (16 Op. O.L.C. 18) concluding the President could refuse to enforce ... N/A View
1990-01-01 N/A The O.L.C. issued an opinion (14 Op. O.L.C. 38) on H.R. 3792, affirming the President's authority... N/A View
1990-01-01 N/A The O.L.C. issued an opinion (14 Op. O.L.C. 38) on H.R. 3792, finding a provision unconstitutiona... N/A View
1990-01-01 N/A The Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion (14 Op. O.L.C. 38) on H.R. 3792, stating the Presid... N/A View
1980-01-01 N/A The Office of Legal Counsel (O.L.C.) issued an opinion (4B Op. O.L.C. 731) rejecting the constitu... N/A View
1980-01-01 N/A The O.L.C. issued an opinion (4B Op. O.L.C. 731) rejecting the constitutionality of a proposed le... N/A View

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017602.jpg

This document appears to be the footer of an email containing a legal disclaimer and a preceding excerpt of text discussing torture, the SERE program, and the Office of Legal Counsel, referencing a 2009 Democracy Now article. The disclaimer identifies the communication as the property of 'JEE' (likely Jeffrey Epstein) and provides a specific Gmail address, 'jeevacation@gmail.com', for reporting transmission errors. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp.

Email excerpt / legal disclaimer
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015027.jpg

The document contains a quoted excerpt discussing the ethical implications of psychologists and the APA participating in "reversed-engineered SERE" interrogation techniques during the Bush administration, describing it as "tortured logic" to avoid legal definitions of torture. It concludes with a standard legal confidentiality disclaimer regarding the communication's content and ownership by "JEE".

Email or correspondence excerpt with legal disclaimer
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_015014.jpg

This document page appears to be a transcript containing a critique of the Office of Legal Counsel and professionals who justified violations of the Geneva Conventions. It references a 2009 Democracy Now article regarding Mitchell Jessen Associates, a firm associated with enhanced interrogation techniques, suggesting this document pertains to government oversight of interrogation practices rather than Jeffrey Epstein specifically.

Transcript / congressional record
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014040.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a law review article (dated roughly 2014) included in a House Oversight investigation. It discusses the legal interpretation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on whether victims' rights apply before formal charges are filed. It highlights a 2010 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion which argued rights do not attach during investigations, and notes that non-prosecution agreements (NPAs) allow prosecutors to avoid notifying victims—a key legal issue in the Jeffrey Epstein case. The text mentions Senator Jon Kyl's objection to this DOJ interpretation.

Legal article / law review page (likely part of a congressional oversight report)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030261.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a report or legal analysis produced by the House Oversight Committee regarding the Mueller investigation into Donald Trump. It details the dismissal of Andrew McCabe, legal theories surrounding the potential indictment of a sitting president, and the conflicting views between the Mueller team and the White House (supported by Alan Dershowitz) regarding obstruction of justice and executive privilege. While likely included in a larger dataset due to the mention of Alan Dershowitz (Epstein's former lawyer), the content focuses entirely on the 2017-2018 political and legal conflict between the Trump administration and the DOJ.

Investigative report / legal analysis (house oversight committee production)
2025-11-19
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012390.jpg

This document is a legal analysis, likely from a government entity like the House Oversight Committee, detailing the constitutional basis for U.S. Presidents to refuse to enforce laws they deem unconstitutional, often through the use of presidential signing statements. It cites several opinions from the Office of Legal Counsel (O.L.C.) and provides historical examples from the administrations of Presidents Wilson and Eisenhower to support the executive's authority. This document is unrelated to Jeffrey Epstein and contains no information about him or any associated individuals, events, or entities.

Legal memorandum / analysis
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012389.jpg

This document is a legal memorandum summarizing various historical opinions from the U.S. Attorney General and the Office of Legal Counsel regarding the constitutional authority of the President to not enforce statutes believed to be unconstitutional. The document, marked 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012389', does not contain any information related to Jeffrey Epstein or his activities; its relevance is likely due to its inclusion in a larger set of documents released by a congressional committee.

Legal analysis memorandum summarizing opinions from the attorney general and the office of legal counsel.
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012388.jpg

This document is a legal memorandum from Assistant Attorney General Walter Dellinger regarding the President's constitutional authority to decline enforcement of a law believed to be unconstitutional, even after signing it. The analysis relies on legal precedent, including the Myers case, and historical examples from Presidents Eisenhower and Roosevelt. Despite the user's query, this document has no discernible connection to Jeffrey Epstein, his associates, or any related activities.

Legal memorandum/opinion from the office of legal counsel (olc), part of a document production for a congressional committee.
2025-11-17
Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012386.jpg

This legal memorandum, dated November 2, 1994, is addressed to Abner J. Mikva, Counsel to the President. It argues that the President has the constitutional authority to decline to execute statutes he believes are unconstitutional, citing judicial precedent from cases like Myers v. United States and long-standing executive branch practice. The memorandum then begins to lay out specific propositions for how and when this authority should be exercised, starting with the President's obligation to act within the bounds of the Constitution.

Legal memorandum
2025-11-17
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
0
As Recipient
0
Total
0
No communications found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search