DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
775 KB
Extraction Summary
4
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
775 KB
Summary
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Vickers | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Vickers, 2014 WL 1838255' for the holding that Section 3283 does not require a sexual act between a defenda...
|
| Sensi | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Sensi, 2010 WL 2351484' for collecting cases that interpret the term 'sexual abuse'.
|
| Schneider | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Schneider, 801 F.3d at 196-97' for the holding that Section 3283 applied to a defendant convicted of travel...
|
| Bridges | Party in a cited legal case |
Cited in 'Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953)', a Supreme Court decision which the defendant relies on for ...
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Supreme Court | government agency |
Mentioned as the court that made the decision in 'Bridges v. United States'.
|
| Third Circuit | government agency |
Mentioned as having rejected an argument identical to the defendant's.
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of legislative intent regarding Section 3283 and the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the case 'Bridges v. United States'.
|
Timeline (4 events)
1953
The Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act and established an 'essential ingredients' test.
Relationships (1)
The document outlines a legal argument against a motion filed by the defendant in a criminal case (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE).
Key Quotes (5)
"does not require that an offense consist of a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child,"Source
— Vickers, 2014 WL 1838255, at *11
(A holding from a previous court case used to argue for a broad interpretation of Section 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
Quote #1
"all crimes that would logically relate to the common understanding of sexual abuse"Source
— Sensi, 2010 WL 2351484, at *2-3
(A quote from a case interpreting the term 'sexual abuse' broadly.)
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
Quote #2
"essential ingredients"Source
— Bridges v. United States
(A legal test from the 'Bridges' case that the defendant is asking the court to apply to Section 3283.)
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
Quote #3
"[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation"Source
— Bridges, 346 U.S. at 216
(A quote from the 'Bridges' decision describing the statute at issue in that case, the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act.)
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
Quote #4
"indicate[d] a purpose to suspend the general statute of limitations only as to” certain narrowly defined offenses."Source
— Bridges, 346 U.S. at 216
(A quote from the 'Bridges' decision explaining the limited scope of the statute in that case.)
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
Quote #5
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document