DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
755 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
755 KB
Summary
This legal document is a page from a court filing that refutes a defendant's argument about the legislative intent of Section 3283. The author argues the defendant used a misleading, selective quote from Senator Patrick Leahy to claim Congress did not intend for an extended statute of limitations to apply retroactively. The document provides the full quotation to show that Congress removed the retroactivity provision due to constitutional concerns, not to limit the statute's application as the defendant suggests.
People (2)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Patrick Leahy | Senator |
Quoted from a 2003 conference committee report regarding the legislative intent of a bill concerning the statute of l...
|
| Nader |
Named as the defendant in the case citation 'United State v. Nader'.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | Government agency |
Discussed as the legislative body whose intent regarding Section 3283 is being debated.
|
| U.S. House of Representatives | Government agency |
Mentioned in the context of the 'original House-passed bill'.
|
| S.D.N.Y. | Court |
Cited as the court in a 2018 case (Southern District of New York).
|
| E.D. Va. | Court |
Cited as the court in the 2019 case 'United State v. Nader' (Eastern District of Virginia).
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) | Government agency |
Appears in the document identifier 'DOJ-OGR-00002991' in the footer.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2003-04-10
Senator Patrick Leahy made a statement regarding a conference committee's decision to drop language from a bill that would have extended a limitations period retroactively.
Congress
Key Quotes (2)
"the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively."Source
— Defendant (quoting Senator Patrick Leahy)
(A selective quotation used in the defendant's motion to argue that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to pre-enactment conduct.)
DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
Quote #1
"A final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government’s authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the “virtual porn” provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well."Source
— Senator Patrick Leahy
(The full statement from the Congressional Record on April 10, 2003, presented to counter the defendant's argument and clarify that the retroactivity language was dropped due to constitutional concerns, not to make the new statute of limitations apply only prospectively.)
DOJ-OGR-00002991.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,254 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 57 of 239
The defendant argues that Congress did not intend for Section 3283 to apply to pre-enactment conduct, and asserts that the legislative history supports this interpretation. Specifically, the defendant points to an earlier version of the bill, which contained an express retroactivity provision that was not included in the final version of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant’s argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy’s comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that “the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.” (Def. Mot. 2 at 7). This is a selective quotation; the full statement regarding retroactivity is as follows:
A final point on section 202: I am pleased that the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively. That language, which would have revived the government’s authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred, is of doubtful constitutionality. We are already pushing the constitutional envelope with respect to several of the “virtual porn” provisions in this bill. I am pleased that we are not doing so in section 202 as well.
149 Cong. Rec. S5137, S5147 (Apr. 10, 2003) (statement of Sen. Leahy) (emphasis added). As the full quotation makes clear, the legislative history does not support the conclusion that when Congress amended Section 3283, it declined to adopt the language in the House-passed bill because it wanted the lengthened statute of limitations to apply only prospectively. Instead, Senator Leahy’s comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for
2018 WL 4043140, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9, 2018) (2016 indictment covering conduct going back to 1998); United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619, 622 (E.D. Va. 2019) (2019 indictment for conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim.
30
DOJ-OGR-00002991
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document