Landgraf
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
organization
USI Film Products
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1994-01-01 | Legal decision | The case of Landgraf v. USI Film Products was decided, establishing a legal analysis for retroact... | N/A | View |
| 1994-01-01 | Legal case | The Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244, which set a framework for det... | N/A | View |
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-00021893.jpg
This legal document argues that the 2003 amendment to federal statute § 3283, enacted as part of the PROTECT Act, applies retroactively. The document asserts that the clear text of the amendment, which eliminates the statute of limitations for certain child abuse offenses, shows Congress's intent to cover past conduct, and therefore applies to Maxwell's conduct as charged in the Indictment.
DOJ-OGR-00021892.jpg
This legal document, part of an appellate court opinion, addresses arguments made by a defendant named Maxwell. The court rejects a 'categorical approach' for determining if offenses involved sexual abuse, citing testimony from a victim, 'Jane', about being abused as a minor across state lines. The document then introduces Maxwell's second argument: that certain counts are barred by the statute of limitations because a 2003 amendment to § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00021809.jpg
This legal document, part of Case 22-1426, discusses two key arguments. First, it affirms that charges involving the sexual abuse of a minor ("Jane") transported across state lines fall under § 3283. Second, it addresses an argument by Maxwell that certain counts are time-barred because a 2003 amendment to the statute of limitations in § 3283 should not apply retroactively, referencing the Supreme Court's test in 'Landgraf v. USI Film Products'.
DOJ-OGR-00021702.jpg
This legal document, dated June 29, 2023, presents an argument regarding the application of Section 3283 to charges against Maxwell for transporting a minor for illegal sexual activity. Maxwell contends the statute doesn't apply because a completed sex act isn't an element of the charge, but the document counters that trial evidence, including testimony from a victim named Jane, established that her offenses did involve completed sex acts. A footnote adds that Judge Nathan found another charge, Count Six, to be timely based on the retroactive application of a different statute, § 3299.
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-00021651.jpg
This document is page iii of a table of contents from a legal filing in Case 22-1426, dated June 29, 2023. It outlines legal arguments concerning specific criminal counts involving sexual abuse of a child, a challenge to a legal approach by someone named Maxwell, and an appeal regarding the District Court's decision to not disqualify Juror 50 despite mistakes on a questionnaire.
DOJ-OGR-00021650.jpg
This document is a Table of Contents page (page ii; file page 3 of 93) from a legal filing dated June 29, 2023, in Case 22-1426. It outlines legal arguments defending the District Court's decisions, specifically asserting that the Epstein Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) only binds the Southern District of Florida (USAO-SDFL) and that charges against Ghislaine Maxwell were timely under statutes of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283 and § 3299).
DOJ-OGR-00021123.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, referencing several court cases and judicial opinions. It highlights a shift in interpretation, particularly noting Judge Cabranes's view in Enterprise that such statutes may have impermissible retroactive effects. The document also points out a tension between the Eighth and Ninth Circuits' reasoning and the Third Circuit's stance on the retroactivity of §3283.
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-00002995.jpg
This legal document, a page from a court filing, presents an argument regarding the Ex Post Facto Clause and statutes of limitations. The author argues that it is constitutionally permissible for Congress to retroactively extend a limitations period for prosecutions that are not yet time-barred, citing numerous legal precedents like Falter v. United States and Stogner v. California. The document concludes that applying Section 3283 retroactively in this case is lawful and dismisses the defendant's contrary assertion.
DOJ-OGR-00002936.jpg
This document is the table of contents for a legal filing in case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, filed on April 16, 2021. The filing appears to be a response from the prosecution arguing against motions made by the defendant, Maxwell. Key arguments outlined include the irrelevance of Jeffrey Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement to this case, the timeliness of the indictment, and reasons why the defendant's motions to dismiss and suppress evidence should be denied.
DOJ-OGR-00004723.jpg
This legal document, filed on May 25, 2021, argues that Counts Five and Six of a criminal case are timely and a motion to dismiss them should be denied. The argument rests on 18 U.S.C. § 3299, a 2006 law that eliminated the statute of limitations for certain sex crimes, which is being applied retroactively to conduct from 2001-2004 based on the legal precedent set in Landgraf v. USI Film Products.
DOJ-OGR-00004722.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a court filing, likely from the prosecution, arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss Counts Five and Six of an indictment. The document asserts that the charges, which involve the sexual abuse of a minor, are timely filed under the statute of limitations (18 U.S.C. § 3283) because the victim is still alive. It also states that the court has previously rejected the defendant's legal arguments regarding the applicability of the statute and its retroactivity.
DOJ-OGR-00004710.jpg
This document is a 'Table of Authorities' from a legal filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, Document 295), filed on May 25, 2021. It lists numerous legal cases, primarily involving the United States as a party, which are cited as legal precedent within the main document. The table provides the case names, citations, and the page numbers where they are referenced in the brief.
DOJ-OGR-00002663.jpg
This legal document, filed on February 4, 2021, argues against the retroactive application of a 2003 Amendment to the alleged offenses of Ms. Maxwell. The author contends that Congressional intent was clear in rejecting retroactivity and that applying the amendment would have impermissible effects. The argument is supported by legal precedents, including Landgraf, Toussie, and Gentile, which favor interpreting criminal statutes of limitation in a way that provides 'repose' for the defendant.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity