DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg

780 KB
View Original

Extraction Summary

6
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes

Document Information

Type: Court filing (handwritten legal argument/notes)
File Size: 780 KB
Summary

This document is a handwritten page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing legal arguments regarding statutes of limitations and definitions of sexual abuse. The author critiques the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 18 USC statutes (specifically §3283, §3509, and §2251), arguing that procedural rules and statutes of limitations are not comparable and citing various case law precedents to support the argument. It concludes with a note about Biden's 1990 Senate bill S. 1965.

People (6)

Name Role Context
Biden Legislator (Senator at the time)
Mentioned in relation to S. 1965 (1990) legislation regarding stay language and limitations.
Schmidt Legal Party
Named in case citation Wachovia Bank V. Schmidt.
McElaney Defendant
Named in case citation United States v McElaney.
Contreras Plaintiff
Named in case citation Contreras v. Holder.
Holder Defendant
Named in case citation Contreras v. Holder.
Rodriguez Defendant
Named in case citation United States v. Rodriguez.

Organizations (4)

Name Type Context
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals
Criticized for its 'non-principled interpretation' and 'holistic' approach regarding statutes.
Wachovia Bank
Named in case citation.
United States Supreme Court
Implied by U.S. citation (546 U.S. 303).
Department of Justice (DOJ)
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.

Key Quotes (4)

"Simply put, there was never any In Pari Materia between Courtroom procedural rules and the Statute of limitations."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #1
"The Second major problem with the Fifth Circuit's non-principled interpretation is that it is not "holistic.""
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #2
"The fact §3283 defines child itself... and §3509(a) doesn't include either physical abuse or kidnapping was just ignored entirely."
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #3
"[3509] is "directly contrary to the definitional method mandated in our Circuit.""
Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #4

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document