Rubin
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | United States v. Rubin court decision | Eastern District of New York | View |
| 1979-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Rubin, 609 F.2d 51, 66 (2d Cir. 1979) | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00001922.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated December 10, 2020, where an attorney argues for a client's release. The attorney cites a 2005 opinion by Judge Orenstein in *United States v. Turner* to support the argument that while victims have a right to be heard, this right does not constitute a veto over a defendant's release, especially when conditions can be set to ensure the defendant's appearance in court.
DOJ-OGR-00009604.jpg
This legal document is a filing that argues against a defendant's motion claiming prejudice. The defendant alleges that the unavailability of 'critical documentary records'—such as flight, financial, and property records related to Epstein—prevented her from challenging government assertions and testimony from a witness named Jane. The filing contends that the defendant's claims are speculative and fail to demonstrate what the missing records would have shown or that they would have been favorable to her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009598.jpg
This legal document outlines the Second Circuit's stringent standard for pre-indictment delay, which requires a defendant to prove both improper government purpose and serious, actual prejudice to their defense. It cites numerous legal precedents to emphasize the heavy burden on the defendant and to define substantial prejudice, noting that the mere loss of evidence or witnesses is typically insufficient. The document establishes that claims of pre-indictment delay are rarely successful.
DOJ-OGR-00003003.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on pre-indictment delay. The government asserts that the defendant has failed to meet the two-prong test required by the Second Circuit: demonstrating actual prejudice and proving the delay was for an improper government purpose. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's due process claim is meritless and should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017614.jpg
This document is a page from a legal analysis (likely a law journal article) produced to the House Oversight Committee by David Schoen. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and specifically analyzes case law determining that victim rights attach before formal charges are filed. It prominently cites 'Does v. United States' (the Epstein case) in the Southern District of Florida, noting that the court rejected the government's dismissal attempts and acknowledged that victims might be entitled to invalidate Epstein's nonprosecution agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014070.jpg
This document appears to be page 91 of a law review article or legal brief from 2014, included in a House Oversight Committee production (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014070). It analyzes the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically discussing the 'logical limits' of when victims' rights attach during the investigative phase before formal charges are filed. It cites *United States v. Rubin* (E.D.N.Y. 2008) to argue that rights cannot attach to uncharged crimes the government has not yet contemplated or verified.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity