UT (Utah)
LocationRelationship Network
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_019690.jpg
This document is page 202 from the book 'How America Lost Its Secrets' (ISBN matches Edward Jay Epstein's book), bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. The text details the history and operational scope of the NSA, its relationship with the 'Five Eyes' allies, and its expansion into regional bases to monitor internet communications. It includes quotes from former CIA officials James Woolsey and John E. McLaughlin regarding the necessity and extent of U.S. surveillance operations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017761.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article, produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses legal frameworks for appointing counsel for crime victims (specifically children and those facing potential charges) and proposes rules for victims' rights to be heard regarding a defendant's release from custody. It cites the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and various U.S. Codes regarding funding and legal authority.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017745.jpg
This document is page 31 of a legal text (likely a law review article from 2005 BYU Law Review) discussing amendments to Federal Rule 32(c)(1)(B) regarding presentence investigation reports and restitution for victims. It analyzes the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act (MVRA) and the Victim and Witness Protection Act (VWPA), arguing that courts should receive restitution information even when restitution is discretionary ('permits') rather than just mandatory ('requires'). The document bears the name 'David Schoen' (Jeffrey Epstein's attorney) at the bottom and a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to Congress.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017739.jpg
This document discusses proposed legal rule changes aimed at protecting crime victims' interests regarding subpoenas and the venue of prosecution. It outlines a requirement for preliminary court screening of subpoenas to ensure relevance and reasonableness, and proposes amending Rule 18 to consider the convenience of victims when setting the place of trial. The text argues these changes protect victim privacy without infringing on the legitimate interests of the government or defendants.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017727.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article included in a House Oversight Committee production (Bates stamp HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017727), bearing the name of attorney David Schoen. The text analyzes the legal definition of a "Victim" under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposes amending Rule 1 to align with the CVRA's broad definition. It cites various case laws (Hughey, Follet, Moore) and legislative acts (MVRA, VWPA) to support the rationale that the definition of a victim should be standardized and broadly interpreted.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016993.jpg
The text explores the transformative potential of "knowledge-based programming," comparing its future impact on civilization to the dawn of language. It discusses how widespread coding literacy could revolutionize education by allowing students to generate new knowledge from data, and concludes by questioning how we identify purpose in computation within natural systems and the universe.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017721.jpg
This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article attached as an exhibit in a House Oversight investigation, bearing the name of Epstein attorney David Schoen. The text discusses the legal limitations of the Victims' Rights Act and the Crime Victims' Rights Act, specifically analyzing the *United States v. McVeigh* (Oklahoma City bombing) case where victims were denied certain rights despite statutory protections. It argues that statutory measures often fail due to judicial interpretation and bureaucratic inertia, leading advocates to push for a constitutional amendment.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017710.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding victims' rights (CVRA). It details changes to Rules 1, 5, 12.1, 12.3, and 17 proposed by the Advisory Committee in 2007, specifically focusing on victim representation, protection during detention hearings, and subpoena notifications. The document bears the name of David Schoen, Epstein's attorney, and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of legal materials submitted to Congress regarding the handling of the Epstein case and victims' rights statutes.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704.jpg
This document is page 69 of 78 from a House Oversight Committee file (Bates HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017704) associated with attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing 'Rule 60. Victim's Rights,' specifically regarding enforcement, limitations on relief, and the inability to request a new trial based on rights violations. The text includes a discussion section criticizing the Advisory Committee for deviating from the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) in ways that reduce victims' rights.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017703.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen, which cites a 2007 Utah Law Review article regarding the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). The text argues for a broad interpretation of a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings, citing legislative history from Senators Feinstein and Kyl. It proposes a new rule (Rule 60(b)) regarding the enforcement of victims' rights and preserving claimed error.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017701.jpg
This document is page 66 of 78 from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on the necessity of providing notice to victims regarding court proceedings and the funding allocated to the DOJ for notification systems. The text argues that failure to notify victims of proceedings renders their rights useless and discusses proposed rules for how courts should handle situations where a victim was not notified.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017696.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article, likely submitted as evidence by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. The text provides a legal analysis of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), arguing that victims should have the right to be heard by the judiciary when charges are dismissed (Rule 48) and proposing amendments to Rule 50 to ensure victims' rights to proceedings free from unreasonable delay. It critiques the Advisory Committee's resistance to formalizing these rights in the federal rules.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017695.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (pages 945-946) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It analyzes the legal obligations of courts and prosecutors to consider a victim's views when dismissing charges, arguing that victims must be treated with fairness and their views heard. The document bears the name of David Schoen (an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) and a House Oversight Committee bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal research or evidence regarding the application of the CVRA (likely in relation to Epstein's controversial Non-Prosecution Agreement).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017692.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article or legal filing, produced as part of a House Oversight investigation (likely related to the Epstein case given David Schoen's involvement). It discusses the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and argues for a new rule (Rule 44.1) allowing courts discretionary authority to appoint counsel for victims. The text analyzes Judge Kenna's interpretation of the CVRA and cites various legal precedents and statutes supporting the inherent authority of courts to appoint counsel.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017684.jpg
This document is page 49 of a larger 78-page filing produced to the House Oversight Committee, bearing the name of attorney David Schoen. It contains an excerpt from the 2007 Utah Law Review proposing or discussing legal rules related to sentencing recommendations, specifically emphasizing the rights of victims to object to presentence reports and participate in sentencing hearings. The text outlines procedural steps for objections, the role of probation officers, and court determinations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 46 of 78 in the exhibit) submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates: HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017681). The text analyzes the legal rights of crime victims to attend trials and have input on venue transfers, citing Supreme Court precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It specifically discusses the New Jersey case *State v. Timmendequas* as an example of prioritizing victims' convenience by importing a jury rather than moving the trial location.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017677.jpg
This document appears to be page 42 of a 78-page legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee. It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article by Paul G. Cassell discussing the legal rights of crime victims, specifically arguing against the broad use of defense subpoenas to obtain victims' private information (such as mental health records). The text cites various legal precedents and Fourth Amendment arguments to support stronger privacy protections for victims in criminal proceedings.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017673.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing by attorney David Schoen, bearing a House Oversight Committee stamp. It presents a legal argument citing a 2007 Utah Law Review article and various precedents (Ritchie, Brady, Hach) to argue that constitutional discovery obligations apply only to the government/state actors, not to third parties or crime victims. The text specifically argues against the ability of defendants to subpoena medical or psychiatric records from third-party witnesses who are not state agents.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017670.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 35 of 78), likely authored or submitted by David Schoen, discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17. The text argues against the Advisory Committee's proposed rules for defense subpoenas, claiming they insufficiently protect victims' confidential information and violate the Rules Enabling Act. It cites *United States v. Nixon* to establish the standard for subpoenas (relevancy, admissibility, specificity).
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017669.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 34 of 78 in the production) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and Rule 17 subpoenas. The text argues that victim privacy and dignity interests should subordinate defense strategy interests, criticizing the Advisory Committee's notes on ex parte procedures. The document bears the name David Schoen (a known attorney for Jeffrey Epstein) at the bottom and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a document production related to a congressional investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017668.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article found in the files of attorney David Schoen (produced for House Oversight). The text analyzes legal procedures regarding 'ex parte' subpoenas, specifically criticizing proposals that would allow defense attorneys to subpoena victim records without notice, using the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case and Pennsylvania rape counselor statutes as examples of how third parties handle confidential victim information. It argues that current or proposed rules regarding the protection of defense 'strategy' are haphazard and often detrimental to victim privacy.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017665.jpg
This document is page 30 of a 78-page submission, containing an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored or submitted by David Schoen. It discusses legal theory regarding Rule 17 subpoenas, specifically arguing for better protection of victim privacy. The text uses the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping case as a primary example of the flaws in existing subpoena rules, detailing how defense attorneys accessed her school and medical records without the family's knowledge.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely authored by Paul Cassell) discussing proposed amendments to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.3 and 15. The text argues for protecting victims' rights, specifically regarding witness disclosure in public-authority defenses and allowing victims to attend pre-trial depositions. The document was produced by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee as part of their investigation, marked with Bates number HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017662.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017651.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (likely written by Paul Cassell) discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposing amendments to Rule 2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to explicitly include fairness to victims. It critiques the Advisory Committee's refusal to adopt these amendments. The document bears the name 'DAVID SCHOEN' and a House Oversight Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production related to an investigation, likely involving Epstein's plea deal and victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017644.jpg
This document is page 9 of a legal text (excerpted from the 2007 Utah Law Review) arguing for the substantive rights of crime victims under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critiques the Advisory Committee for failing to fully implement congressional intent regarding fairness for victims and lists eight specific rights granted by the CVRA. The document bears a footer for 'David Schoen' and a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, suggesting it was submitted as evidence or background material in a congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity