USI Film Products
OrganizationRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Landgraf
|
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-00000077.tif
This document is an excerpt from a legal filing or opinion, discussing the application of a statute of limitations (§ 3283) in a case involving Maxwell. It focuses on whether the 2003 amendment to § 3283, which extended the statute of limitations for child sexual abuse and kidnapping offenses, can be applied retroactively to pre-enactment conduct, citing Supreme Court precedent on statutory retroactivity.
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-00021691.jpg
This page from a legal document outlines the legal standard for retroactivity as established in the Supreme Court case Landgraf v. USI Film Products. It then introduces an argument from a claimant named Maxwell, who alleges that the District Court incorrectly applied a 2003 amendment to Section 3283 retroactively to her convictions on Counts Three, Four, and Six, which involved conduct predating the amendment.
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-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.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity