This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as the plaintiff/petitioner in the case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
|
| Burgess | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as the plaintiff/petitioner in the case Burgess v. United States.
|
| Schneider | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Schneider.
|
| Vickers | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Vickers.
|
| Carpenter | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned in the citation for the Carpenter case, likely a party.
|
| Diehl | Party in a lawsuit |
Mentioned as the defendant in the case United States v. Diehl.
|
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| SmithKline Beecham Corp. | company |
Mentioned as the defendant/respondent in the case Christopher v. SmithKline Beecham Corp.
|
| United States | government agency |
Mentioned as a party in the cases of Burgess v. United States, United States v. Schneider, United States v. Vickers, ...
|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as the legislative body that did not require actual sexual contact as an element for certain offenses.
|
"illustrative, not exhaustive."Source
"involving"Source
"as defined here encompasses a wider set of behavior than just rape or other unwanted sexual touching."Source
"a sexual act between a defendant and a specific child"Source
"physical contact with the victim"Source
Complete text extracted from the document (1,780 characters)
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document