DOJ-OGR-00021893.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
3
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
0
Relationships
2
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to federal statute § 3283, enacted as part of the PROTECT Act, applies retroactively. The document asserts that the clear text of the amendment, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, shows Congress's intent to cover past conduct, and therefore applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Maxwell |
Mentioned as the individual whose conduct, as charged in the Indictment, is subject to the PROTECT Act's amendment to...
|
|
| Landgraf |
Cited in footnote 24 in the case Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280.
|
|
| Weingarten |
Cited in footnote 25 in the case Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55.
|
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress | government agency |
Mentioned as the body that amended § 3283 in 2003 and intended for the PROTECT Act's amendment to apply to pre-enactm...
|
| Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC | company |
Party in a case cited in footnote 24: In re Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig.
|
Key Quotes (2)
"is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects."Source
— unspecified court/legal precedent
(Quoted to explain the legal standard for determining if a statute applies retroactively.)
DOJ-OGR-00021893.jpg
Quote #1
"No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child."Source
— § 3283 as amended in 2003
(The text of the amended statute provided by Congress in 2003, which is central to the legal argument.)
DOJ-OGR-00021893.jpg
Quote #2
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,509 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 121-2, 12/02/2024, 3637741, Page16 of 26
statute as it is written.”24 If the statute “is ambiguous or contains no express command regarding retroactivity, a reviewing court must determine whether applying the statute to antecedent conduct would create presumptively impermissible retroactive effects.”25
Here, the inquiry is straightforward. In 2003, Congress amended § 3283 to provide: “No statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution for an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse, or kidnaping, of a child under the age of 18 years shall preclude such prosecution during the life of the child.”26 The text of § 3283—that no statute of limitations that would otherwise preclude prosecution of these offenses will apply—plainly requires that it prevent the application of any statute of limitations that would otherwise apply to past conduct.
The statutory text makes clear that Congress intended to extend the time to bring charges of sexual abuse for pre-enactment conduct as the prior statute of limitations was inadequate. This is enough to conclude that the PROTECT Act’s amendment to § 3283 applies to Maxwell’s conduct as charged in the Indictment.
24 In re Enter. Mortg. Acceptance Co., LLC, Sec. Litig., 391 F.3d 401, 406 (2d Cir. 2004) (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 280).
25 Weingarten, 865 F.3d at 55 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
26 PROTECT Act, Pub. L. No. 108-21, § 202, 117 Stat. 650, 660 (2003).
16
DOJ-OGR-00021893
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document