DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
780 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
4
Organizations
0
Locations
0
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing (handwritten legal argument/notes)
File Size:
780 KB
Summary
This document is a handwritten page from a court filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) containing legal arguments regarding statutes of limitations and definitions of sexual abuse. The author critiques the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of 18 USC statutes (specifically §3283, §3509, and §2251), arguing that procedural rules and statutes of limitations are not comparable and citing various case law precedents to support the argument. It concludes with a note about Biden's 1990 Senate bill S. 1965.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Biden | Legislator (Senator at the time) |
Mentioned in relation to S. 1965 (1990) legislation regarding stay language and limitations.
|
| Schmidt | Legal Party |
Named in case citation Wachovia Bank V. Schmidt.
|
| McElaney | Defendant |
Named in case citation United States v McElaney.
|
| Contreras | Plaintiff |
Named in case citation Contreras v. Holder.
|
| Holder | Defendant |
Named in case citation Contreras v. Holder.
|
| Rodriguez | Defendant |
Named in case citation United States v. Rodriguez.
|
Organizations (4)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals |
Criticized for its 'non-principled interpretation' and 'holistic' approach regarding statutes.
|
|
| Wachovia Bank |
Named in case citation.
|
|
| United States Supreme Court |
Implied by U.S. citation (546 U.S. 303).
|
|
| Department of Justice (DOJ) |
Indicated by Bates stamp DOJ-OGR.
|
Key Quotes (4)
"Simply put, there was never any In Pari Materia between Courtroom procedural rules and the Statute of limitations."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #1
"The Second major problem with the Fifth Circuit's non-principled interpretation is that it is not "holistic.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #2
"The fact §3283 defines child itself... and §3509(a) doesn't include either physical abuse or kidnapping was just ignored entirely."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #3
"[3509] is "directly contrary to the definitional method mandated in our Circuit.""Source
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,281 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 10 of 22 5
Simply put, there was never any In Pari Materia between Courtroom procedural rules and the Statute of limitations. Wachovia Bank V. Schmidt, 546 U.S. 303, 316 (in general). See United States v McElaney 54 M.J. 120, 126 (§3509(k) stands alone.).
The Second major problem with the Fifth Circuit's non-principled interpretation is that it is not "holistic." The fact §3283 defines child itself (instead of using §3509(a)(2)), and §3509(a) doesn't include either physical abuse or kidnapping was just ignored entirely. Also ignored was the misfiling, and the fact that §3283 has the odd quality of superceeding other statutes of limitations.
The Fifth Circuit found a definition of sexual abuse they felt could pass as including 18 USC § 2251 (a), and that was the end of the analysis. To top it off the Fifth Circuit had previously found, in an in banc hearing, §3509(a)(8) was not acceptable as a definition of sexual abuse. See Contreras v. Holder, 754 F.3d 286 (5th Cir. 2014) ([3509] is "directly contrary to the definitional method mandated in our Circuit." citing United States v. Rodriguez 711 F.3d 541, 550 (5th C. 2013)).
2. Biden's S. 1965 (1990) combined stay language with limitation
DOJ-OGR-00005188
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document