Lawson
PersonRelationship Network
DOJ-OGR-00022732.tif
This document is an index or glossary providing terms like 'largest', 'last', 'late', 'later', 'law', 'lawyer', 'lawyers', 'lead', 'Leah', 'learn', 'learned', 'least', 'leave', 'leaves', 'leaving', 'led', 'left', 'legal', 'legitimate', 'lend', 'Lennox', 'Leon', 'Les', 'less', 'let', 'letter', 'letters', 'let's', 'level', 'Levine', 'liar', 'license', 'lie', 'life', 'life-restricting', 'light', 'liked', 'line', 'line's', 'linked', 'Lipper', 'list', 'listen', 'lit', 'literally', 'little', 'live', 'lived', 'lives', and 'Limited'. Each term is followed by a series of page and line number references where it appears in a larger document. The document also features the logo 'MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES' and a DOJ-OGR number at the bottom.
DOJ-OGR-00022629.tif
This document is an index or reference list, likely from a larger report or transcript, detailing various words and names with corresponding page and line numbers. It includes references to 'Lipper,' 'Levine,' 'Lawson,' 'Lennox,' 'Leon,' 'Les,' and 'Leah,' along with common words like 'largest,' 'last,' 'late,' 'later,' 'latter,' 'laughs,' 'launching,' 'laundering,' 'law,' 'lawyer,' 'lawyers,' 'lead,' 'leading,' 'learn,' 'learned,' 'least,' 'leave,' 'leaves,' 'leaving,' 'led,' 'left,' 'legal,' 'legitimate,' 'lend,' 'less,' 'let,' 'letter,' 'letters,' 'let's,' 'level,' 'liar,' 'license,' 'lie,' 'life,' 'life-restricting,' 'light,' 'liked,' 'line,' 'line's,' 'linked,' 'list,' 'listen,' 'lit,' 'literally,' 'little,' 'live,' 'lived,' and 'lives.' The document also bears the logo 'MAGNA LEGAL SERVICES' and a DOJ-OGR-00022629 identifier.
DOJ-OGR-00021059.jpg
This document is page 12 of 113 from a legal filing (Case 22-1426, Document 59), dated February 28, 2023. It contains a 'Table of Authorities' listing various legal precedents (U.S. v. [Defendant]) cited in the main brief, along with their corresponding page numbers. The document bears a Department of Justice Bates stamp (DOJ-OGR-00021059).
DOJ-OGR-00021117.jpg
This document is page 55 (PDF page 70) of a legal brief filed on February 28, 2023, in Case 22-1426. The text presents a legal argument regarding the 'Landgraf test' and statutory interpretation, specifically arguing that the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) was not intended to apply retroactively because Congress explicitly rejected a proviso that would have allowed it to cover conduct predating the enactment. The page relies on various Supreme Court and Circuit Court citations to support the argument that rejected legislative proposals are significant indicators of congressional intent.
DOJ-OGR-00009608.jpg
This document constitutes page 46 of a legal filing (Document 621) in the case United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell, filed on February 25, 2022. The text argues that Maxwell failed to prove that the Government intentionally delayed her indictment to gain a 'tactical advantage,' citing numerous Second Circuit legal precedents to support this standard. The court dismisses Maxwell's arguments regarding the delay as 'specious' and notes a lack of evidence that the delay was intended to thwart her defense.
DOJ-OGR-00009597.jpg
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that the defendant's (Maxwell's) due process claim should be denied. The court asserts that she has failed to demonstrate actual prejudice from a pre-indictment delay or that the Government's delay was for an improper purpose. The document cites legal precedents, including United States v. Marion, to emphasize that the statute of limitations is the main safeguard against stale charges and that cases brought within that period hold a strong presumption of validity.
DOJ-OGR-00003014.jpg
This document is page 80 of a legal filing (Document 204) from Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (United States v. Ghislaine Maxwell), filed on April 16, 2021. The text presents legal arguments regarding the dismissal of an indictment due to pre-indictment delay, citing numerous Second Circuit precedents (such as Cornielle, Alameh, and Delacruz) to establish that a defendant must prove the Government intentionally delayed specifically to gain a 'tactical advantage.'
DOJ-OGR-00003003.jpg
This legal document is a portion of a government filing arguing against a defendant's motion to dismiss charges based on pre-indictment delay. The government asserts that the defendant has failed to meet the two-prong test required by the Second Circuit: demonstrating actual prejudice and proving the delay was for an improper government purpose. The filing cites several legal precedents to support its position that the defendant's due process claim is meritless and should be denied.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity