N.Y. Times
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00001601.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a filing arguing for bail for Ms. Maxwell. The defense contends that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly mitigates her flight risk, citing a recent ruling in another case (U.S. v. El Mokadem) where a defendant was released for this reason. The filing also distinguishes Maxwell's case from Epstein's, arguing the government does not allege she poses a current danger to the community, and that her alleged offenses ended in 1997.
DOJ-OGR-00001590.jpg
This is page 10 of a legal filing from July 10, 2020, in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues for release or specific detention conditions based on the high risk of COVID-19 in prisons, citing statistics and prior court rulings. It specifically notes that Maxwell was transferred to the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC) by the BOP on July 6, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00019884.jpg
This legal document argues that the risks of COVID-19 to inmates in correctional facilities have significantly increased, citing a doubling of cases and a 73% increase in deaths in the last month. It highlights that the virus is now spreading in the Metropolitan Detention Center (MDC), where Ms. Maxwell was recently transferred by the Bureau of Prisons. The document uses prior court opinions and news reports to support the claim of heightened risk and the inevitability of community spread in such facilities.
DOJ-OGR-00010149.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a bibliography of publications by Stephen Gillers from 1993 to 1997. The listed articles, published in various legal journals and newspapers, cover topics such as legal ethics, political controversies like Whitewater and Filegate, and the Clinton administration. The document also references a mock legal appeal based on Shakespeare's Hamlet.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016547.jpg
This page from the Minnesota Law Review contains a series of footnotes (188-201) discussing legal topics such as rape law reform, crime statistics, and federal police reform. It references various statutes like the Violence Against Women Act and 42 U.S.C. ยง 14141, as well as specific cases like United States v. Screws and the prosecution of Michael Slager.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016540.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103, p. 904) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text discusses the legal theory of 'federal redundancy' and the 'dual sovereignty' doctrine (citing Gamble v. United States), arguing that federal prosecutors serve as a check on local prosecutors in cases of police misconduct. While the text focuses on police violence and double jeopardy laws, its inclusion in this production is likely relevant to legal arguments surrounding Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement and whether federal charges could supersede state agreements.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016529.jpg
This document is a page from the Minnesota Law Review (Vol 103) produced by attorney David Schoen for the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016529). The text discusses the legal theory of 'Federalism Safeguards on Prosecutorial Discretion,' specifically analyzing how the U.S. system allows federal prosecutors to override or 'second-guess' state prosecutors' decisions not to prosecute (declination decisions), contrasting this with models in Canada, Germany, and Australia. The footnotes discuss historical racial inequities in the U.S. justice system and EU directives on crime victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016515.jpg
This document is a page from a legal academic article (Minnesota Law Review) discussing the concept of 'underenforcement' in the criminal justice system, particularly regarding sexual assaults and corruption. It argues that underenforcement often stems from bias or favoritism and undermines the legitimacy of legal institutions. The document bears the name of David Schoen (one of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of the congressional investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, likely to argue points regarding prosecutorial discretion or failure to prosecute.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017765.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on closed-circuit transmission of trials for victims and the right to be heard at sentencing for petty offenses. The text argues that the CVRA necessitates changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to ensure victim participation. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, indicating it was likely used as an exhibit or reference in legal proceedings or congressional inquiries related to the Epstein case (likely regarding CVRA violations).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017698.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It argues for rules allowing closed-circuit transmission of proceedings for victims (citing the Oklahoma City bombing case) and mandating victim notification. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as part of a congressional inquiry, likely related to the handling of victims' rights in the Jeffrey Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017610.jpg
This document details the contentious plea negotiations involving Jeffrey Epstein, where the U.S. Attorney's Office agreed to a non-prosecution agreement without informing the victims, leading to a lawsuit under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text highlights the government's argument that CVRA rights do not attach without formal federal charges and frames the central legal issue regarding when these rights apply. It includes numerous footnotes citing media reports and legal filings related to the case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017355.jpg
This document appears to be a page from a book draft or legal manuscript (dated April 2, 2012) written by a high-profile attorney (likely Alan Dershowitz). The text analyzes Bill Clinton's risk-taking psychology regarding the Monica Lewinsky affair, comparing Clinton's behavior to the author's own 'celebrity clients' who risk their careers for immediate gratification because they have successfully avoided consequences in the past. It discusses Clinton's legal strategy of defining sexual relations to maintain 'deniability' and references Maureen Dowd.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_014047.jpg
This document is a page from a legal journal (Vol. 104) discussing the federal case 'Does v. United States' and the controversial nonprosecution agreement granted to Jeffrey Epstein by the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of Florida. The text details how, despite evidence that Epstein molested over 30 girls between 2001 and 2007, he was allowed to plead to lesser state charges after a 'year-long assault on the prosecution' by his defense team. The page includes footnotes citing court documents, media reports connecting Epstein to Prince Andrew, and a letter from former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta regarding the pressure faced by prosecutors.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity