Names that match “Florida Supreme Court”
2,223 documents found
50434327780003070 Csc Brazilian Lp 296
document 50434327780003070 CSC BRAZILIAN LP 296 House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
001.00 1 CONDO COMMERCIAL 5043432778 BRAZILIAN COURT HOTEL AND CONDO * (***) RU-307 0460 CONDO COMM 1926 0 1
50434327780003080 Csc Brazilian Lp 296
document 50434327780003080 CSC BRAZILIAN LP 296 House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
001.00 1 CONDO COMMERCIAL 5043432778 BRAZILIAN COURT HOTEL AND CONDO * (***) RU-308 0460 CONDO COMM 1926 0 1
50434327780003090 Gaynor Vere 301
document 50434327780003090 GAYNOR VERE 301 House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
001.00 1 CONDO COMMERCIAL 5043432778 BRAZILIAN COURT HOTEL AND CONDO * (***) RU-309 0460 CONDO COMM 1926 0 1
Doe#4
document Doe#4 House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
Edwards filed a motionin U.S. District Court in West Palm Beach that alleges well-known criminal defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz and Prince Andrew
In January
document In January House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
another Epstein victim alleged in court papers that Epstein treed her to have sex with Britain's Prince Andrew and high-profile attorney Alan Dershowitz when she was a
Professor Rodel Was So Concerned That I Might Contaminate The Elderly Justice Black That He Took The Train To Washington To Try To Persuade Him To Reject The Recommendation Of His Recent Law Clerk. In The End
document Professor Rodel was so concerned that I might contaminate the elderly Justice Black that he took the train to Washington to try to persuade him to reject the recommendation of his recent law clerk. In the end House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
Justice Black told Professor Calabresi that he had to defer to his friend's veto for that year but that he would consider me for the following year. This was the best possible news because it allowed me to accept a clerkship with Judge David Bazelon on the United States Court of...
I Arrived In Washington During The Summer Of 1962
document I arrived in Washington during the summer of 1962 House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
in the midst of the Kennedy Administration. Although Judge David Bazelon was a court of appeals judge—early in my clerkship he became Chief Judge—he was at the center of Washington life
Since Bazelon Was The Chief Judge
document Since Bazelon was the Chief Judge House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
he always presided and got to assign the opinion to one of the three judges on a panel (or nine when on rare occasions the entire court heard the case “en banc”). Following the oral argument
When I Then Advised The Court That Under My Theory
document When I then advised the court that under my theory House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
the judges would not have to view the film. Judge Aldrich immediately interjected: “Are you trying to bribe us to decide the case so we don’t have to see the film?...I will admit that’s the best bribe I have ever been offered.”
But As I Promised Judge Aldrich
document But as I promised Judge Aldrich House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
I continued to press my principle in the court of public opinion and in a series of other obscenity cases over the next several decades. Ultimately my view would prevail
The Most Publicized And Notorious Of The Vietnam Protest Cases Was The Conspiracy Prosecution Against The “Chicago 7” Growing Out Of Demonstrations During The 1968 Democratic Convention. After The Trial Of That Case
document The most publicized and notorious of the Vietnam protest cases was the conspiracy prosecution against the “Chicago 7” growing out of demonstrations during the 1968 Democratic Convention. After the trial of that case House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
the lead defense lawyer—William Kunstler—was held in contempt of court and sentenced to four years imprisonment. I was part of the legal team assembled to prepare the appeal of that contempt order. We won.
“Much Of Plaintiff's Recent Commercial Activity Upon Which Her Fame Is Based Has Been Far More Sexually Suggestive Than The Photographs Which Have Been Shown To The Court. These Photographs Are Not Sexually Suggestive
document “Much of plaintiff's recent commercial activity upon which her fame is based has been far more sexually suggestive than the photographs which have been shown to the court. These photographs are not sexually suggestive House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
provocative or pornographic; they do not suggest promiscuity. They are photos of a prepubescent girl in innocent poses at her bath. In contrast
This Reasoning Fails To Distinguish Between A 17 Year Old And A 10 Year Old. The Earlier Photographs Were Taken Of A 10 Year Old Kid
document This reasoning fails to distinguish between a 17 year old and a 10 year old. The earlier photographs were taken of a 10 year old kid House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
whose mother controlled what she would do. Her later appearances were made by a near-adult and were far more within her own control. The court simply ignored the argument by the 10 year old should not be bound by foolish decisions made by an ambitious mother when Brooke was too...
As Soon As The Dissent Was Published
document As soon as the dissent was published House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
there was an immediate reaction. Conservative journalists had a field day lambasting the very notion that a court could strike down as unconstitutional a long-standing punishment that is explicitly referred to in the Constitution.
Then In 1971 The Court Took Its First Turn Toward The Noose: In Mc Gautha V. California
document Then in 1971 the Court took its first turn toward the noose: In Mc-Gautha v. California House Oversight Committee — Epstein Estate Records (Nov 2025)
it held that a condemned person’s constitutional rights were not violated “by permitting the jury to impose the death penalty without any governing standards” or by permitting the imposition of the death penalty in “the same proceeding and verdict as determined