Holder
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Reid Weingarten
|
Friend |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Nijhawan
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Kawashima
|
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 |
| 2009-01-01 | Court decision | Citation to Nijhawan v. Holder, which held that a statute with an 'offense ... involves' phrase i... | N/A | View |
| 2009-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case citation for Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29 (2009). | N/A | View |
| 2009-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court decision in Nijhawan v. Holder. | Supreme Court | View |
| 2009-01-01 | N/A | Supreme Court case Nijhawan v. Holder | N/A | View |
| 2002-12-23 | Invoice issuance | Invoice number 4-495-75031 was issued on this date. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000127.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal analysis discussing the interpretation of statutory language, specifically § 3283, and the application of 'categorical' versus 'circumstance-specific' approaches in legal contexts. It references several court cases including United States v. Schneider (2015), Weingarten (865 F.3d at 58), United States v. Morgan (2004), and Nijhawan v. Holder (2009), to support the argument that courts should look beyond bare legal charges to the circumstances of an offense, especially when a statute uses the word 'involves'.
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-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-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
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-00002943.jpg
This document is page 9 of 239 from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal case citations alphabetically from 'Miller v. Pate' to 'SEC v. TheStreet.com'. Each entry includes the case name, its legal reporter citation, and the page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005188.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
This handwritten legal document argues that Congress intentionally excluded specific child abuse definitions found in § 3509(a) when making technical corrections in 1994, suggesting these definitions apply to civil reporting rather than criminal statutes. The text cites legal precedents such as *Ibarra v. Holder*, *Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement*, and *Brown v. Gardner* to support principles of statutory interpretation regarding congressional intent and context.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023367.jpg
This document is page 7 of a Table of Authorities from a legal brief generated via Westlaw in 2019, likely related to the 9/11 terrorist attacks litigation ('In re: TERRORIST ATTACKS ON SEPTEMBER 11, 2001'). It carries a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee. While the user identifies this as Epstein-related, there are no direct mentions of Jeffrey Epstein or his immediate associates on this specific page; however, the inclusion of cases involving Deutsche Bank (implied by similar financial litigations) or UBS AG suggests this may be part of a larger file regarding financial institutions.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023102.jpg
This document is a printed web article from 'The Litigation Daily' dated September 4, 2015, featuring an interview with prominent white-collar defense attorney Reid Weingarten of Steptoe & Johnson LLP. The article highlights his high-profile list of clients, including executives from Enron, WorldCom, and Goldman Sachs, as well as Roman Polanski, and discusses his legal philosophy and relationship with Eric Holder Jr. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a production to the House Oversight Committee.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_026345.jpg
This document is an email chain from October 14-15, 2014, between Jeffrey Epstein and former White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler. Ruemmler shares a Bloomberg article about her being a top candidate to become the next Attorney General, after which she and Epstein quickly arrange to speak by phone. The exchange indicates a familiar and direct line of communication between the two.
Objection to Department's conclusions on CVRA rights
Strenuously objecting to the Department's conclusions regarding the timing of CVRA rights application.
CVRA interpretation concerns
Holder never sent a response; Weich responded instead.
Impartiality in Election Years
Emphasizes that politics must play no role in decisions of federal prosecutors.
2011 Guidelines revisions conflict with CVRA
Argued that the 2011 Guidelines revisions conflicted with the CVRA's plain language because they did not extend rights to victims until charges have been filed.
Distortion of legislative history / CVRA interpretation
Expressing surprise that OLC quoted his remarks out of context and clarifying that victims have rights before an indictment is filed.
Interpretation of CVRA
Expressing surprise that OLC quoted his remarks out of context and clarifying that CVRA rights apply pre-indictment.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity