Sarwari
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012-01-01 | Legal case | United States v. Sarwari, 669 F.3d 401 (4th Cir. 2012) | 4th Cir. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00003082.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, specifically a memorandum of law, discussing the legal standards for perjury. The author argues against dismissing a perjury count before trial based on 'fundamental ambiguity,' citing numerous court cases to establish that such challenges are typically evaluated after a trial. The text distinguishes between answers that are literally true but misleading (which may not be perjury) and answers that are outright false, regardless of responsiveness (which can be perjury).
DOJ-OGR-00003081.jpg
This document is page 147 of a court filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330 (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. It contains legal analysis regarding perjury charges, specifically discussing the legal standard for 'fundamental ambiguity' in questioning. The text cites various precedents to argue that a perjury count stands unless a question is so ambiguous that people of ordinary intellect cannot agree on its meaning, noting that simple amenability to multiple meanings is not a sufficient defense.
DOJ-OGR-00002956.jpg
This document is page xxi from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. It serves as a table of authorities, listing various legal precedents in the format 'United States v. [Defendant]'. Each entry includes the case citation and the corresponding page numbers where it is referenced within the main document.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity