DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
607 KB
Extraction Summary
2
People
2
Organizations
0
Locations
1
Events
1
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal brief / court filing (appellate)
File Size:
607 KB
Summary
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 22-1426), bearing a DOJ stamp, dated September 17, 2024. It presents a legal argument that the 2003 PROTECT Act amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which eliminates the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse offenses during the life of the child, applies retroactively. The text specifically concludes that this amendment applies to 'Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.'
Organizations (2)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Justice |
Inferred from Bates stamp 'DOJ-OGR'.
|
|
| 2d Cir. |
Cited in footnote 24.
|
Relationships (1)
Context of the legal argument regarding the indictment and statute of limitations.
Key Quotes (3)
"This is enough to conclude that the PROTECT Act’s amendment to § 3283 applies to Maxwell’s conduct as charged in the Indictment."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000017.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
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
Quote #2
"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."Source
DOJ-OGR-00000017.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,509 characters)
Case 22-1426, Document 109-1, 09/17/2024, 3634097, 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-00000017
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document