9th Cir.
OrganizationRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002951.jpg
This document is page xvi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing numerous 'United States v.' court cases with defendants ranging from Israel to Laurenti. Each entry provides the legal citation for the case and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
DOJ-OGR-00002947.jpg
This document is page 13 (pagination xii) of a court filing (Document 204) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing previous legal cases (legal precedents) cited elsewhere in the full brief, predominantly from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the Southern District of New York.
DOJ-OGR-00005814.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for the admissibility of expert testimony from Dr. Rocchio regarding delayed disclosure in sexual abuse cases. It cites several legal precedents (Raniere, Young, Betcher) to demonstrate that such testimony is helpful for juries to understand victim behavior. The document also addresses the defendant's specific challenge that Dr. Rocchio is not an expert on memory in general, with the Government conceding that point but affirming her expertise in the relevant field of trauma psychology.
DOJ-OGR-00005797.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) dated October 29, 2021. The text argues for the admissibility of expert testimony regarding 'grooming' and the psychological relationship between sexual abuse victims and perpetrators, citing numerous appellate court precedents (9th, 8th, 10th, 5th, and 2nd Circuits) to support the validity/relevance of such testimony. The filing notes that the defendant is attempting to rely on a single contrary case from the District of Maine.
DOJ-OGR-00005400.jpg
This legal document argues that there is no absolute right for an accused person to know a witness's true name and address, citing various legal precedents and the Crime Victims' Rights Act. It emphasizes the strong public interest in protecting the identities of victims, particularly in sex abuse cases, to ensure their dignity, privacy, and safety, and to encourage future victims to report crimes. The document provides multiple examples of cases where courts have permitted victims, including minors, to testify using pseudonyms or partial names.
DOJ-OGR-00005247.jpg
This is page 2 of a legal filing (Document 354) from the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN), filed on October 15, 2021. The text argues that the Court has the authority to set an earlier deadline for the defense to file motions under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (the rape shield law), citing various precedents to support the Government's request for an earlier briefing schedule. The document references multiple other cases (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to demonstrate that courts frequently set Rule 412 deadlines more than 14 days prior to trial.
DOJ-OGR-00005238.jpg
This document is Page 2 of a legal filing (Document 351) in Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on October 15, 2021. The Government argues that under Federal Rule of Evidence 412 (Rape Shield Law), the Court has the authority to set a deadline for defense motions regarding sexual behavior evidence earlier than the standard 14 days before trial. The text cites multiple legal precedents (Andrews, Rivera, Dupigny, Backman, Valenzuela) to support the request for an earlier briefing schedule to ensure victims' rights to be heard.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017711.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article (page 76 of 78 in the specific file) analyzing changes to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (Rules 21, 32, and 60) regarding victims' rights and the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It critiques the Advisory Committee for not going far enough to ensure victims have a right to be heard during case transfer decisions and sentencing. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of a legal file or submission related to the investigation into the handling of the Epstein case, specifically regarding victims' rights violations.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017702.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and proposed amendments to legal rules regarding a victim's right to be heard in court proceedings. It specifically critiques the 'Advisory Committee' for having too narrow a scope for when victims can be heard (bail, plea, sentencing) versus a broader approach advocated by the author (likely Paul Cassell). The document was produced by attorney David Schoen (who represented Jeffrey Epstein) to the House Oversight Committee, likely as part of research or evidence regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017671.jpg
This document is a page from a 2007 Utah Law Review article authored by David Schoen, who later served as an attorney for Jeffrey Epstein. The text is a legal analysis of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17, arguing for strict adherence to the 'Nixon factors' (specificity, relevancy, and admissibility) when issuing subpoenas to prevent 'fishing expeditions.' The document includes extensive legal footnotes citing various precedents and was produced as part of a House Oversight Committee investigation (likely regarding the handling of the Epstein case).
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity