DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
794 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
2
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
794 KB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 12, 2021, that critiques a court's decision in a case referred to as "Schneider." The author argues that the Schneider court misinterpreted statute §3283 by failing to examine its legislative history, unlike the approaches in the cited cases of "Dodge" and "Bridges." The document contends that the Schneider court's failure led it to avoid creating a necessary "common" definition of sexual abuse.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Schneider |
Mentioned as the subject of a legal case or court decision being analyzed (e.g., "Schneider failed to examine...", "t...
|
|
| Dodge |
Mentioned as the subject of a legal case being cited as precedent (e.g., "Citing Dodge (supra) at 1355", "the Dodge C...
|
|
| Bridges |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case "Bridges v. United States".
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned in the context of legislative history and Congressional intent regarding statute §3283.
|
| United States | government |
Mentioned as a party in the legal case "Bridges v. United States".
|
Timeline (2 events)
1953
The case of Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, which laid out the "essential ingredient test" and evaluated the language "offense involving fraud".
Relationships (2)
Schneider court
→
professional
→
Bridges case
The document argues that the Schneider court failed to properly distinguish its reasoning from the precedent set in the Bridges case.
Schneider court
→
professional
→
Dodge court
The document contrasts the legal approaches of the Schneider and Dodge courts, suggesting the Schneider court's approach was flawed.
Key Quotes (3)
"[3283] has no restrictive language of legislative history suggesting Congressional intent to limit its application to specific subset of circumstances. Congress rather has evinced a general intention to 'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible.'"Source
— Schneider court
(A conclusion reached by the Schneider court regarding §3283, which the author of this document is critiquing.)
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
Quote #1
"offense involving fraud"Source
— Bridges v. United States case
(The specific language evaluated in the Bridges case within the context of a statute of limitation.)
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
Quote #2
"common"Source
— Author of the document
(Used to describe the type of definition of sexual abuse the author believes the Schneider court should have created.)
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,286 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 15 of 22 10
Schneider failed to examine §3283's legislative history and thus concluded, "[3283] has no restrictive language of legislative history suggesting Congressional intent to limit its application to specific subset of circumstances. Congress rather has evinced a general intention to 'cast a wide net to ensnare as many offenses against children as possible.'" Citing Dodge (supra) at 1355. The purpose of this finding was to avoid the essential ingredient test laid out in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953). Bridges evaluates the language "offense involving fraud" in the context of a statute of limitation, and is thus directly on point. Note that the Dodge Court was evaluating SORNA¹ which has nothing to do with §3283. There is no legitimate reason to distinguish Bridges, because as shown there is legislative history limiting §3283 to a specific subset of circumstances. Dodges also is based on a categorical test not an essential element test. A categorical approach would have required the Schneider court to create a "common" definition of sexual abuse, which for good reason the Schneider court failed to do. The Court in Schneider
¹ Sexual Offender Registration Notification Act
DOJ-OGR-00005193
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document