| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1997-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 1997-01-01 | Legal decision | The case of United States v. Schmidt was decided. | Second Circuit Court of App... | View |
This document is page 133 of a legal filing (Document 204) in the case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell). It presents legal arguments and case law precedents regarding government misconduct, specifically the high burden required to prove 'outrageous' government conduct that would warrant dismissal of an indictment. The text argues that relief is only appropriate if the misconduct prejudiced the defense, and that suppression of evidence is the standard remedy rather than dismissal.
This document is a page from a legal filing, likely a brief or motion, dated April 16, 2021. It argues that the standard for proving a Fifth Amendment due process violation is extremely high, requiring government conduct that is so egregious it "shocks the conscience." The text cites numerous legal precedents, including cases like Rochin, to illustrate that such violations typically involve severe invasions of individual rights and bodily integrity, and notes the defendant bears a "very heavy" burden of proof.
This document is page xxii of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 204), filed on April 16, 2021. It is a table of authorities, listing numerous legal cases from 'United States v. Schafrick' to 'United States v. Swanson,' along with their legal citations and the page numbers where they are referenced within the main document. The cases cited span from 1972 to 2015 and originate from various federal district and circuit courts.
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.
This document is a page from a legal opinion concerning the "In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001" litigation, specifically addressing RICO claims against Arab Bank and the SAAR Network. The court dismisses the plaintiffs' claims under 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a) for failure to allege injury from investment of racketeering income and discusses the requirements for liability under § 1962(c) and (d), noting that defendants must have some part in directing the enterprise's operation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity