Leocal
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Ashcroft
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | Court decision | Citation to Leocal v. Ashcroft, which also concerned a statute with language invoking an elements... | N/A | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Leocal v. Ashcroft was decided, interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). | United States | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Leocal v. Ashcroft, which stated that language like “offense that . . . involves” req... | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
DOJ-OGR-00021054.jpg
This document is page 'vi' (Page 7 of 113) of a legal filing dated February 28, 2023, bearing the Bates stamp DOJ-OGR-00021054. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents referenced in the main brief, including cases such as 'Hudson Valley Black Press v. I.R.S.' and 'Martin v. Hadix'. The document appears to be part of a larger Department of Justice filing, likely related to a FOIA case or appeal given the OGR marking.
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-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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity