Jama
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005-01-01 | Court decision | The Supreme Court decided the case of Jama v. Immigr. & Customs Enf’t, 543 U.S. 335. | United States Supreme Court | View |
DOJ-OGR-00009207.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a brief arguing against the government's reliance on the case United States v. Shaoul. The author contends that the government's interpretation of Shaoul is flawed because it did not address the specific argument being made, its relevant language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like Langford and the Supreme Court's decision in McDonough. The document uses principles of legal precedent to assert that the court should not follow the government's reasoning.
DOJ-OGR-00009886.jpg
This legal document, filed on March 11, 2022, is part of a brief arguing on behalf of Ms. Maxwell. The argument refutes the government's reliance on the case precedent of *United States v. Shaoul*, claiming it is inapplicable because it did not consider the specific points at issue, its key language is non-binding dictum, and it is inconsistent with earlier, controlling precedents like *Langford* and the Supreme Court's decision in *McDonough*. The document emphasizes that under the rules of precedent, the court is bound by these earlier decisions, not by *Shaoul*.
DOJ-OGR-00005187.jpg
This handwritten legal document argues that Congress intentionally excluded specific child abuse definitions found in § 3509(a) when making technical corrections in 1994, suggesting these definitions apply to civil reporting rather than criminal statutes. The text cites legal precedents such as *Ibarra v. Holder*, *Jama v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement*, and *Brown v. Gardner* to support principles of statutory interpretation regarding congressional intent and context.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity