DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
624 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
2
Events
1
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
624 KB
Summary
This page is from a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on June 29, 2023. It argues against Ghislaine Maxwell's interpretation of the statute of limitations under the PROTECT Act. The text asserts that Congress rejected a specific retroactivity clause not to limit the Act's scope entirely, but to avoid unconstitutional results (reviving time-barred crimes), while still intending to cover past conduct where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Ghislaine Maxwell | Defendant/Appellant |
Her legal arguments regarding the statute of limitations and the PROTECT Act are being discussed and rebutted.
|
| Judge Nathan | Judge |
Cited for recognizing that Congress abandoned the retroactivity provision due to constitutional concerns.
|
| Co-sponsor | Legislator |
Unnamed legislator whose remarks expressed concern about the constitutionality of the retroactivity provision.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Legislative body that enacted the 2003 amendment and the PROTECT Act.
|
|
| DOJ |
Department of Justice (indicated by footer DOJ-OGR).
|
|
| Supreme Court of the United States |
Implied by citation of Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Mentioned in case citation Stogner v. California.
|
Relationships (1)
Judge Nathan's previous ruling or recognition is cited to refute Maxwell's current argument.
Key Quotes (4)
"Congress evinced a clear intent to extend the limitations period"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
Quote #1
"the legislative history makes clear that Congress abandoned the retroactivity provision . . . because it would have produced unconstitutional results."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
Quote #2
"the proposed retroactivity provision was 'of doubtful constitutionality' because it 'would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred'"Source
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
Quote #3
"Congress intended to limit the PROTECT Act to its constitutional applications, including past conduct—like Maxwell's—on which the statute of limitations had not yet expired."Source
DOJ-OGR-00021696.jpg
Quote #4
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document