Bridges
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
organization
Communist Party
|
Alleged former affiliation |
6
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N/A | Legal proceeding | The Government charged Bridges with willfully making a false statement. | N/A | View |
| 1953-01-01 | Legal case | The Court applied a categorical approach to the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) in *... | N/A | View |
| 1953-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209, which laid out the "essential ingredient test... | N/A | View |
| 1953-01-01 | Legal decision | The Supreme Court's decision in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned th... | N/A | View |
| 1945-01-01 | Application | Bridges submitted a naturalization application, denying membership in the Communist Party. | N/A | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000129.tif
This document is a legal excerpt discussing the application of the PROTECT Act and related statutes of limitations, particularly concerning offenses involving child sexual abuse. It references legal precedents like Weingarten, Schneider, and United States v. Dodge, emphasizing Congress's intent to broadly apply these statutes. The text also addresses Maxwell's contention regarding the applicability of the PROTECT Act to her alleged offenses based on the timing of the conduct.
DOJ-OGR-00021109.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues for a specific interpretation of statute § 3283. It cites legal precedents from cases like Bridges, Scharton, and Noveck to support the claim that § 3283 does not modify the statute of limitations for § 2423(a) violations. The document contrasts this with a 2001 action by Congress, which used explicit language to eliminate the statute of limitations for certain terrorism offenses, arguing that Congress knows how to be specific when it intends to be.
DOJ-OGR-00021108.jpg
This legal document analyzes the application of the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act (WSLA) by referencing the 1953 Supreme Court case *Bridges v. U.S.* It details how Bridges was charged for a false statement regarding Communist Party membership in his 1945 naturalization application and how the Supreme Court interpreted the WSLA's scope. The document criticizes a District Court for mischaracterizing the *Bridges* opinion concerning the WSLA's legislative history and the nature of fraud.
DOJ-OGR-00021053.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' page from a legal filing dated February 28, 2023. It lists various legal precedents (case law) cited in the main brief, including 'Doe v. Indyke et al.,' which directly references Darren Indyke, a known associate and executor for Jeffrey Epstein. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp.
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-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-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.
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.
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-00005182.jpg
This document is a handwritten legal argument filed in court on October 12, 2021, challenging a court's interpretation of statute §3283. The author argues that the statute's legislative history, originating from the 1986 Sexual Abuse Act, demonstrates its narrow purpose is for sexual assault and related offenses, not a broader application. The argument cites several legal cases (Davis, Pledges, Bridges) to contend that the court's findings are 'patently wrong'.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity