Senator Leahy
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
MAXWELL
|
Indirect |
5
|
1 | |
|
location
Congress
|
Member |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
PROTECT Act
|
Cosponsor |
1
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-04-22 | N/A | Statements by Senators Feinstein and Leahy recorded in the Congressional Record regarding the CVRA. | US Congress | View |
| 2003-04-10 | Legislative statement | Senator Leahy made a statement expressing concerns about the constitutionality of the proposed re... | Congress | View |
| 2003-04-10 | N/A | Congressional Record entry regarding Senator Leahy's statement on the PROTECT Act. | N/A | View |
EFTA00029540.pdf
This document is an Opinion & Order by District Judge Alison J. Nathan in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The Court denies Maxwell's motions to dismiss the indictment based on Jeffrey Epstein's 2007 Non-Prosecution Agreement, statute of limitations arguments, and pre-indictment delay. However, the Court grants Maxwell's motion to sever the perjury charges from the sex trafficking-related charges, ruling they must be tried separately to ensure a fair trial. The Court also orders the parties to negotiate a schedule for outstanding pretrial disclosures.
EFTA00028903.pdf
This document is a Reply Memorandum filed by Ghislaine Maxwell's defense team on March 15, 2021, supporting a motion to dismiss counts one through four of her indictment as time-barred. The defense argues that the 2003 Amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations, cannot be applied retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a retroactivity provision. Additionally, the defense contends that the Mann Act offenses charged (enticement to travel and transportation of a minor) do not 'necessarily entail' the sexual abuse of a child, and thus the extended statute of limitations under § 3283 does not apply.
DOJ-OGR-00000132.tif
This document discusses the legislative history and intent behind the PROTECT Act's retroactivity provisions, emphasizing that Congress removed an express retroactivity clause due to constitutional concerns. It cites a Supreme Court case (Stogner v. California) and Senator Leahy's statements to argue that the Act applies to past conduct, like Maxwell's, where the statute of limitations had not yet expired, without violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.
DOJ-OGR-00020774.jpg
This legal document argues that the PROTECT Act's statute of limitations applies to Maxwell's past conduct. It counters Maxwell's argument by explaining that Congress removed an express retroactivity provision from the bill due to constitutional concerns raised by figures like Senator Leahy, not to prevent its application to cases where the statute of limitations had not yet expired.
DOJ-OGR-00002993.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues for the retroactive application of a 2003 amendment to Section 3283, a statute of limitations. It contends that applying the amendment to pre-enactment conduct satisfies the Supreme Court's two-step 'Landgraf' analysis, as it does not impair the rights or increase the liability of the defendant, Maxwell. The document asserts that the amendment merely preserves the status quo rather than attaching new legal consequences.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017766.jpg
This document is page 52 of a 2005 Brigham Young University Law Review article discussing the implementation of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA). It emphasizes the necessity for the judiciary to comprehensively protect victims' rights in federal criminal cases to avoid further congressional intervention. The document bears the name of attorney David Schoen (Epstein's lawyer) and a House Oversight Committee Bates stamp, suggesting it was part of materials submitted during a congressional investigation, likely regarding the violation of victims' rights in the Epstein case.
Concerns regarding PROTECT Act retroactivity
Senator Leahy expressed concerns in a committee report that the proposed retroactivity provision was 'of doubtful constitutionality' because it 'would have revived the government's authority to prosecute crimes that were previously time-barred.'
Retroactivity clause in the PROTECT Act
Statement opposing the retroactivity clause due to doubtful constitutionality.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity