Scharton
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
U.S.
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1926-01-01 | Court case | U.S. v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 (1926) | U.S. Supreme Court | View |
| 1926-01-01 | Legal case | The case of U.S. v. Scharton, 285 U.S. 518 was decided. | N/A | View |
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-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
DOJ-OGR-00021103.jpg
This legal document presents an argument that all charges against the Appellant should be dismissed because they are barred by the five-year statute of limitations for noncapital offenses. The document contends that the Government's reliance on a specific exception (18 U.S.C. § 3283) for crimes against children is an overreach and warns that a broad interpretation of this statute could have significant negative consequences within the judicial circuit.
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-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-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-00021121.jpg
This legal document discusses the retroactive application of statutes of limitations, particularly in the context of criminal law. It references several court cases and legal principles, arguing that statutes of limitations should not be applied retroactively unless Congress clearly states otherwise.
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