Schneider
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Finnman
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
location
United States
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Court decision | Citation to a Third Circuit decision in Schneider, which applied a case-specific analysis to Sect... | Third Circuit | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal case | Legal case: United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 | U.S. Court of Appeals for t... | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Court case | The ruling in United States v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 197. | 3d Cir. | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal case | The 3d Circuit court ruled in United States v. Schneider. | 3d Cir. | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Court case | U.S. v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186 (3d Cir. 2015) | 3d Cir. | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal ruling | Opinion issued in the case U.S. v. Schneider, 801 F.3d 186, 196. | 3d Cir. | View |
| 2015-01-01 | Legal case | The case of *United States v. Schneider*, 801 F.3d 186, 196 (3d Cir. 2015) is cited as a Third Ci... | N/A | View |
| 2010-09-15 | Court case | U.S. v. Schneider, C.A. No. 10-29, 2010 WL 3656027 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2010) | E.D. Pa. | View |
DOJ-OGR-00021058.jpg
This document is page 11 of a legal filing from Case 22-1426, dated February 28, 2023. It is a table of authorities listing numerous U.S. court cases, dating from 1926 to 2022, which are cited within the main document. Each citation includes the case name, legal reporter information, and the page numbers where the case is referenced.
DOJ-OGR-00020771.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the § 3283 statute of limitations, particularly in cases involving child sex abuse and war frauds. It examines arguments made by 'Maxwell' and contrasts interpretations from Supreme Court cases like *Bridges v. United States* with those from the Second Circuit in *Weingarten* and the PROTECT Act. The document concludes that the legislative history and plain meaning of the statute support a broader application rather than a narrow one.
DOJ-OGR-00020769.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in a criminal case against an individual named Maxwell. The court analyzes and ultimately rejects Maxwell's argument that a 'categorical approach' should be used to interpret the statutes related to the charges. The court relies on precedent from the Second and Third Circuits, particularly the reasoning in *Weingarten v. United States*, to conclude that the categorical approach is not applicable in this context.
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-00021705.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing that argues for a broad interpretation of "sexual abuse" under Section 3283. It cites multiple federal court cases to support the position that the term covers a wide range of offenses, including those without actual physical contact, as intended by Congress. The argument is used to justify that charges like transportation of a minor for an illegal sex act (Count Four) fall within this definition.
DOJ-OGR-00021658.jpg
This document is page 11 of 93 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426), dated June 29, 2023. It is a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'United States v. Salameh', 'United States v. Teman', and 'United States v. Vickers'. The footer indicates it is a Department of Justice document (DOJ-OGR-00021658).
DOJ-OGR-00021120.jpg
This legal document argues that the District Court's application of statute § 3283 is improper because it creates "impermissible retroactive effects" without explicit authorization from Congress. The author cites several legal precedents, including Landgraf and U.S. v. Richardson, to support the established legal principle against the retroactive application of statutes, particularly criminal statutes of limitations. The document contends that because clear congressional intent for retroactivity is absent, the District Court's decision must be reversed.
DOJ-OGR-00021110.jpg
This legal document argues that a District Court's interpretation of statute § 3283 is flawed because it relies on misinterpreted legal precedent. The author contends the court, following a Third Circuit opinion, improperly applied a quote from the *Dodge* case, which concerned a different statute (SORNA), to invent a legislative history for § 3283 that does not exist.
DOJ-OGR-00003000.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from April 16, 2021, argues against using a 'categorical approach' to interpret the phrase 'offense involving' in Section 3283. It cites several legal precedents, most notably Weingarten v. United States, to counter an argument made by an individual named Maxwell. The document asserts that Congress intended a broad application of the statute and that the categorical approach, typically used in sentencing or immigration contexts, is not appropriate here.
DOJ-OGR-00002999.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument against a defendant's motion. The author contends that Section 3283, concerning sexual abuse offenses, should be interpreted broadly, citing precedents like 'Vickers' and 'Schneider'. The document argues that the defendant's reliance on the 'essential ingredients' test from 'Bridges v. United States' is misplaced because that case dealt with a different, more narrowly drafted statute (the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act) and is therefore inapplicable.
DOJ-OGR-00002998.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, analyzes the definition of "sexual abuse" under federal law, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3509(a). It argues for a broad interpretation by citing several court cases, including decisions from the Supreme Court and various Circuit Courts. The document emphasizes that the definition is not limited to physical sexual contact but also includes actions like persuasion and inducement, and that the statutory examples are illustrative rather than exhaustive.
DOJ-OGR-00002957.jpg
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.
DOJ-OGR-00005644.jpg
This legal document, filed on October 29, 2021, is a motion or argument against allowing the proposed expert testimony of an individual named Rocchio. The author contends that Rocchio's opinions on why sexual abuse victims may delay reporting are unreliable, subjective, untestable, and inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence. The document cites legal precedent, specifically *Schneider, 2010 WL 3734055*, to support its claims that Rocchio's testimony would not be helpful to a jury.
DOJ-OGR-00005635.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing from October 29, 2021, argues against the admissibility of expert opinions from a treatment provider named Rocchio. The filing contends that Rocchio's opinions on grooming are based solely on personal experience, lack a reliable methodology, and are not supported by scientific literature. It cites various legal precedents and an academic article to assert that her testimony fails to meet the standards for expert witnesses.
DOJ-OGR-00005194.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, dated October 12, 2021. The author argues against a prior legal ruling, the 'Schneider decision,' by citing several court cases to support a 'categorical reading' of statutes concerning sexual abuse. The text contends that opposing arguments misapply legal definitions from statutes like §3509 and §3283, particularly in non-Chapter 109A offenses.
DOJ-OGR-00005193.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, dated October 12, 2021, that critiques a court's decision in a case referred to as "Schneider." The author argues that the Schneider court misinterpreted statute §3283 by failing to examine its legislative history, unlike the approaches in the cited cases of "Dodge" and "Bridges." The document contends that the Schneider court's failure led it to avoid creating a necessary "common" definition of sexual abuse.
DOJ-OGR-00005192.jpg
Handwritten legal notes analyzing the scope of Section 3283's "offense involving" language, discussing its application to repealed offenses and specific statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 113(a) and Chapter 109A. The text cites case law including United States v. Johnson, Miller v. United States, and United States v. Kepler to explore jurisdictional limits and the definition of conduct involving abuse.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023557.jpg
This document is a page from 'The JokeLand E-Mail List' (associated with the email jokeland@aol.com). It contains a series of offensive or 'dirty' jokes, including one about a Jewish man praying to win the lottery, a crude joke about Dracula, a joke about Parkinson's disease, and a joke about shoe size. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023557' footer, indicating it was part of a document production for the House Oversight Committee, likely discovered within the email records of a subject under investigation.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029760.jpg
This document appears to be a single page from a larger House Oversight Committee production (marked HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029760). The content consists entirely of five distinct jokes or humorous anecdotes separated by asterisks. The jokes involve characters named 'Schneider' and 'Fugelsang,' as well as generic figures (a midget, Spanish guys, a waiter). There is no factual information regarding flight logs, financial transactions, or specific Epstein-related activities on this page.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029759.jpg
This document appears to be a printed page from 'The JokeLand E-Mail List,' containing a series of crude jokes and promotional phone numbers for a joke hotline ((516) 922-9463). The content includes jokes about religion, Parkinson's disease, and dracula. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_029759' Bates stamp, indicating it was included in a document dump related to a House Oversight Committee investigation, though the content itself does not appear to contain sensitive intelligence or direct references to specific investigative targets beyond being a forwarded email.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332.jpg
This document is page 3 of a table of contents for a 2013 publication called 'Tax Topics,' listing articles from 2010 and 2011. The articles cover complex U.S. tax and estate planning subjects, such as specific legal cases, legislative acts, and tax planning strategies (e.g., GRATs). While the document itself does not mention Jeffrey Epstein or his known associates, its focus on sophisticated wealth and estate tax law is relevant to the financial activities of high-net-worth individuals, and its identifier 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_022332' indicates it was collected as part of a congressional investigation.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity