Relationship Details

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.

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.

An email dated June 15, 2019, from David Schoen to Jeffrey Epstein (using the alias jeevacation@gmail.com) alerting him that Fox News is re-running an article. The article discusses a civil lawsuit settlement Epstein reached with alleged victims to avoid testimony and describes him as a 'Clinton-linked financier.'

This document is a page from a 2005 BYU Law Review article (page 39 of 52 in the exhibit), stamped with a House Oversight Bates number and the name David Schoen. It outlines Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regarding sentencing hearings, specifically focusing on the handling of objections to presentence reports and the rights of victims to be heard and participate in the process. The text emphasizes that victims have rights independent of the government or the defendant.

This document is an email exchange from March 26, 2019, between David Schoen and 'J' (Jeffrey Epstein, using the address jeevacation@gmail.com). Schoen forwards a Fox News article reporting the death of a federal judge who was presiding over a lawsuit involving Epstein; Epstein acknowledges the news with a single word response: 'Yup'. The email footer contains a disclaimer asserting the content is the property of 'JEE' and may be attorney-client privileged.

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.

An email from attorney David Schoen to Jeffrey Epstein dated June 15, 2019, discussing a Fox News article about Epstein settling a civil lawsuit. Schoen criticizes the article's characterization of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) as 'moronic' and expresses a strong desire for the media to report on admissions he claims accusers made under oath.

This document is an excerpt from a 2005 BYU Law Review article discussing the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), specifically focusing on a victim's right to attend court proceedings and be heard. The text analyzes the rationale behind allowing victims to be present during trials and cites various state constitutions and federal rules (Rule 615). The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen in the footer and a House Oversight Bates stamp, suggesting it was used as legal research or an exhibit in proceedings related to the investigation of the handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case, likely concerning the violation of victims' rights.

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).