DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
991 KB
Extraction Summary
5
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
4
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing / court document (government response/opposition brief)
File Size:
991 KB
Summary
This page is from a government filing in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE), arguing against the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The text asserts that the Ex Post Facto Clause is not violated because the limitations period had not expired for Counts One through Four when it was extended in 2003. Footnotes address the specific ages of Minor Victims 1, 2, and 3 in relation to the 2003 extension and discuss the 'Landgraf' Supreme Court precedent regarding legislative retroactivity.
People (5)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Defendant | Accused |
Refers to Ghislaine Maxwell (based on case number 1:20-cr-00330-PAE). The text argues against her motion regarding st...
|
| Minor Victim-1 | Victim |
Victim mentioned in Footnote 15; described as being younger than 25 in 2003.
|
| Minor Victim-2 | Victim |
Victim mentioned in Footnote 15; described as being younger than 25 in 2003.
|
| Minor Victim-3 | Victim |
Victim mentioned in Footnote 15; described as being NOT younger than 25 in 2003. Associated with conspiracy counts On...
|
| President | Executive Branch |
Refers to a historical US President who vetoed a predecessor statute to the 1991 Act (referenced in Footnote 14).
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Legislative body responsible for extending/abolishing statutes of limitations in 1990, 2003, and 2006.
|
|
| Supreme Court |
Cited in Footnote 14 regarding the 'Landgraf' decision.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00002992).
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, cited in legal precedent United States v. Ben Zvi.
|
Timeline (4 events)
Relationships (2)
Prosecution arguing right to prosecute defendant for conspiracy involving Minor Victim-3.
Both described as younger than 25 in 2003 in Footnote 15.
Key Quotes (4)
"Accepting the defendant’s argument would undermine Congress’s plain purpose in extending the limitations period."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
Quote #1
"Congress extended—and ultimately abolished—the statute of limitations to ensure that prosecutors could seek justice for child sex abuse victims who come forward or identify their abusers after a delay."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
Quote #2
"Minor Victim-1 and Minor Victim-2 were both younger than 25 in 2003..."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
Quote #3
"Thus, the defendant is incorrect to assert that the government is 'barred' from prosecuting the defendant for any offense against Minor Victim-3."Source
DOJ-OGR-00002992.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document