Kawashima
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Holder
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Kawashima v. Holder, which interpreted the phrase “offenses that involve fraud or dec... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
DOJ-OGR-00021106.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, argues against a court's decision to use a 'case-specific' approach instead of the standard 'categorical approach' for a case involving the transportation of minors. The author contends that under the correct categorical approach, which looks only at the elements of the statute, Counts Three and Four should have been dismissed because sexual abuse is not a required element of the crime. The document criticizes the court for rejecting this established legal principle to avoid dismissing the charges.
DOJ-OGR-00021054.jpg
This document is page 'vi' (Page 7 of 113) of a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021054. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents referenced in the main brief, including cases such as 'Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S.' and 'Martin v. Hadix'. The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice filing, likely related to a FOIA case or appeal given the OGR marking.
DOJ-OGR-00021708.jpg
This document is page 61 of a legal brief filed on June 29, 2023 (Case 22-1426), likely by the government in response to an appeal by Ghislaine Maxwell. The text argues that case law cited by Maxwell regarding the 'essential ingredient' test and statutes of limitations (specifically Bridges, Scharton, and Noveck) is distinguishable and inapplicable to her case involving sexual abuse of a child (18 U.S.C. § 3283). It asserts that Congress intended a broader application for child sexual abuse statutes compared to the fraud statutes discussed in the cited cases.
DOJ-OGR-00021653.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' (page 'v') from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 79), dated June 29, 2023. It lists various legal precedents and case citations used in the main document, including Supreme Court and Circuit Court cases. The document bears a DOJ-OGR (Office of General Review) footer, indicating it was likely released via FOIA or a similar transparency process.
DOJ-OGR-00021112.jpg
This document is page 65 of a legal brief (Case 22-1426) filed on February 28, 2023. The text presents a legal argument regarding statutory interpretation, specifically debating whether a 'categorical approach' or a 'case-specific approach' should apply to 8 U.S.C. § 3283. The brief argues that the District Court erred by using a case-specific approach, citing conflicts with Supreme Court precedents such as *Nijhawan v. Holder*, *James v. U.S.*, and *Kawashima*.
DOJ-OGR-00002667.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated February 4, 2021, which argues for a specific interpretation of the statutory phrase "offense involving." It cites several court precedents, including cases like Kawashima v. Holder and United States v. Morgan, to support the position that this phrase requires looking at the essential elements of the crime itself, not merely the surrounding circumstances. The D.C. Circuit's analysis of a venue statute is used as a key example to illustrate that for an offense to 'involve' an activity like interstate transportation, that activity must be a formal element of the offense.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity