Dodge
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-01-01 | Legal ruling | Opinion issued in the case United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1355. | 11th Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
This legal document argues that a District Court's interpretation of statute § 3283 is flawed because it relies on misinterpreted legal precedent. The author contends the court, following a Third Circuit opinion, improperly applied a quote from the *Dodge* case, which concerned a different statute (SORNA), to invent a legislative history for § 3283 that does not exist.
DOJ-OGR-00003000.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 12, 2021. The author argues against a prior legal ruling, the 'Schneider decision,' by citing several court cases to support a 'categorical reading' of statutes concerning sexual abuse. The text contends that opposing arguments misapply legal definitions from statutes like §3509 and §3283, particularly in non-Chapter 109A offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
This document is a page of handwritten legal notes filed on October 12, 2021, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents a legal argument focusing on 'Plain Language' statutory interpretation, specifically distinguishing between 'exploitation' and 'sexual or physical abuse.' The author cites several legal precedents (Patterson v. Schriro, US v. Pharis, US v. Dodge) and criticizes the Fifth Circuit for ignoring guidance regarding statutory construction and the misfiling of statute of limitation language in 1990.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_021828.jpg
This document is page 5 of a rough draft transcript from a deposition or hearing bearing a House Oversight Bates stamp. A former judge is being questioned about their current pro bono work through the University of Utah and their admission *pro hac vice* in the Southern District of Florida. The questioning focuses on the witness's past judicial conduct, specifically whether they ever struck pleadings for being impertinent or scandalous; the witness recalls referring attorneys to the Bar in two such instances rather than striking pleadings immediately.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity