Judge Aldrich

Person

Mentions

Relationships

Events

Documents

Also known as:

Judge Julian and Judge Aldrich Judge Aldrich's Grandmother

Relationship Network

Network Depth

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.

4 total relationships

Sort by:

Connected Entity	Relationship Type	Strength (mentions)	Documents	Actions
person narrator	Professional adversarial	6	1	View
person Mr. Dershowitz	Legal representative	6	2	View
person narrator	Professional	5	1	View
person Alan Dershowitz	Legal representative	5	1	View

Date	Event Type	Description	Location	Actions
N/A	N/A	Legal hearing regarding the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'	Court (likely Boston)	View
N/A	N/A	Narrator declined invitation to speak at Judge Aldrich's restricted club	Restricted Club	View
N/A	N/A	Legal proceeding regarding First Amendment rights and obscenity laws.	Courtroom (implied)	View
N/A	N/A	Legal hearing regarding the obscenity of the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'.	Courtroom	View
N/A	N/A	Three days of intensive argument and questioning	Courtroom (implied Massachu...	View
N/A	N/A	Issuance of judicial decision	Courtroom	View
N/A	N/A	Court hearing involving Alan Dershowitz arguing before Judge Aldrich and Judge Julian regarding o...	Courtroom (likely Federal C...	View

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017191.jpg

This document is page 104 of a manuscript (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a Supreme Court oral argument regarding the film 'I Am Curious (Yellow).' The author details a contentious exchange with Chief Justice Warren Burger regarding a 'bear-baiting' analogy, harshly criticizing Burger's intelligence and judicial performance. The text also references the subsequent 'Miller v. California' decision in June 1973.

Manuscript draft / book excerpt (legal memoir)

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book (likely by Alan Dershowitz) produced during a House Oversight investigation (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017188). It recounts a legal argument Dershowitz made before Judges Julian and Aldrich concerning obscenity laws, privacy, and the 'Griswold v. Conn' precedent. Dershowitz argues that personal offense at the conduct of others is not a sufficient constitutional basis for banning that conduct, a position Judge Aldrich ultimately accepted in his decision.

Book excerpt / legal transcript (house oversight production)

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017187.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or book written by Alan Dershowitz, stamped with a House Oversight production number. It recounts a legal argument Dershowitz made before Judge Julian and Judge Aldrich regarding First Amendment protections for films, specifically involving Grove Press and the distinction between enclosed theaters and public displays of obscenity. The text includes both transcript-style dialogue and first-person narrative commentary by Dershowitz.

Book manuscript / legal transcript excerpt

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017186.jpg

This document appears to be a page (p. 99) from a manuscript or memoir draft written by Alan Dershowitz, dated April 2, 2012. It recounts a historical courtroom exchange between Dershowitz, Judge Aldrich, and Judge Julian regarding First Amendment protections for the film 'I Am Curious Yellow' and the definition of obscenity. The text focuses on legal arguments concerning whether profit motives invalidate First Amendment protections. The document bears a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a document production related to investigations involving Dershowitz.

Manuscript draft / legal memoir

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017185.jpg

This document appears to be a page from a manuscript or memoir (dated draft 4.2.12) by Alan Dershowitz, recounting a past appellate argument regarding obscenity and First Amendment rights. The text details an exchange with Judges Aldrich and Julian where Dershowitz argues that the *Stanley v. Georgia* decision should extend to movie theaters if proper warnings (prologues) are given to the audience. The page includes a humorous anecdote about a watchmaker/mohel and a hypothetical legal argument involving a 'Pornography Shop' in Boston.

Legal memoir draft / transcript excerpt

2025-11-19

Analysis Source

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017184.jpg

This document appears to be page 97 of a manuscript or memoir (likely by Alan Dershowitz) recounting a legal argument regarding the First Amendment and the film 'I Am Curious Yellow'. The narrator describes the panel of three judges (Aldrich, Julian, Pettine) and details his arguments comparing the case to the Supreme Court's 'Stanley' decision regarding private possession of materials. The document bears a House Oversight stamp, indicating it was part of a congressional production.

Manuscript / legal memoir excerpt

2025-11-19

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

As Recipient

Total

Invitation to speak

From: Judge Aldrich

To: narrator

Invitation to speak at the Club of Odd Volumes

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Declining invitation

From: narrator

To: Judge Aldrich

Declined invitation due to policy against restricted clubs

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Invitation to speak

From: Judge Aldrich

To: narrator

Invitation to present a talk at the Club of Odd Volumes.

Call

N/A

Communication Source

Declining Invitation

From: narrator

To: Judge Aldrich

Declined invitation citing policy against restricted clubs.

Call

N/A

Communication Source

First Amendment and Obscenity

From: Alan Dershowitz

To: Judge Aldrich

Debate regarding the First Amendment, commercial motives for speech, and public exposure to obscenity via billboards vs. enclosed theaters.

Legal argument/court transcript

N/A

Communication Source

Discussion 0

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search