Broxmeyer
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010-01-01 | Legal proceeding | The case of United States v. Broxmeyer was decided by the 2d Circuit court. | 2d Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00016952.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN, USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell) filed on August 10, 2022. It details a legal argument between prosecutor Mr. Rohrbach and defense attorney Mr. Everdell regarding jury instructions defining 'causation,' 'inducement,' and 'persuasion' in relation to a victim referred to as 'Jane' traveling in interstate commerce. The defense seeks specific language linking inducement to the travel, while the prosecution argues that the terms inherently imply causation.
DOJ-OGR-00016951.jpg
This document is a court transcript from a case filed on August 10, 2022, detailing a legal argument about jury instructions. An unnamed speaker contends that a specific instruction on causation for terms like 'persuasion' and 'inducement' would confuse the jury and is not required by precedent from the Broxmeyer case. In response, Mr. Everdell argues that such an instruction would not heighten the level of proof but would simply clarify the meaning of the words as they are used in the statute.
DOJ-OGR-00016455.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript where an attorney argues the legal definitions of "persuade," "induce," and "entice." Citing the case U.S. v. Broxmeyer and the Random House Dictionary, the speaker asserts these words imply causation, requiring an action by the defendant to bring about an effect. The attorney concludes by stating that the only evidence linking their client, Ms. Maxwell, to a trip taken by "Jane" to New York is Jane's own testimony.
DOJ-OGR-00017307.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 10, 2022, detailing a conversation between a judge ('The Court') and an attorney ('Mr. Everdell'). They are discussing the legal definition of the word "entice," with the judge citing precedent from the cases *United States v. Almonte* and *United States v. Dupigny*. Mr. Everdell attempts to recall another case related to a Rule 29 argument he previously made.
DOJ-OGR-00013830.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated August 10, 2022, from case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE. An unnamed speaker makes a legal argument to a judge, defining the terms "persuade, induce, entice" as words of causation by citing the legal precedent U.S. v. Broxmeyer and definitions from the Random House Dictionary. The argument is framed in the context of testimony from a witness named Jane regarding Ms. Maxwell's alleged involvement in her travel to New York.
DOJ-OGR-00010434.jpg
This document is page 17 of a defense sentencing memorandum filed on June 15, 2022, in the case against Ghislaine Maxwell. The defense argues against the application of sentencing guideline § 4B1.5 ('Repeat and Dangerous' sex offenders), asserting that Maxwell has not committed crimes in nearly 20 years, is not attracted to minors, and acted only as a facilitator for Epstein's impulses rather than having them herself. The text contrasts her behavior with case law examples of violent repeat offenders and highlights her subsequent crime-free life involved with partners who had children.
DOJ-OGR-00010433.jpg
This document is page 16 of a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, the Ghislaine Maxwell trial) filed on June 15, 2022. It presents legal arguments regarding sentencing guidelines for sex offenders, citing Congressional intent from 1998 and the specific guideline USSG § 4B1.5. The text argues that sentence enhancements should be applied to 'Repeat and Dangerous' sex offenders who pose a continuing danger to the public, supported by quotes from Rep. Deborah Pryce and Sen. Orrin Hatch.
DOJ-OGR-00002671.jpg
This legal document argues that the extended statute of limitations under 18 U.S.C. § 3283 is not applicable to Counts Three and Four of an indictment. The reasoning provided is that the relevant offenses, defined under 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and § 2422(a), are crimes of intent and do not require sexual abuse, physical abuse, or kidnapping as an essential element. The document cites case law, including *United States v. Broxmeyer* and *Bridges*, to support the claim that the nature of the offense, not the specific facts alleged in the indictment, determines the applicability of the statute of limitations.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity