Ashcroft
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Thom
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Leocal
|
Legal representative |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Iqbal
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004-01-01 | Court decision | Citation to Leocal v. Ashcroft, which also concerned a statute with language invoking an elements... | N/A | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Leocal v. Ashcroft was decided, interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 16(b). | United States | View |
| 2004-01-01 | Legal case | The case of Leocal v. Ashcroft, which stated that language like “offense that . . . involves” req... | N/A | View |
025.pdf
This document is a Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York in the derivative litigation against JP Morgan Chase & Co. It outlines arguments regarding pleading standards, demand futility, and failure to state claims against the defendants, including specific points related to JPMorgan's termination of Epstein as a client and the oversight of internal controls by the board of directors. The document includes a table of authorities citing numerous legal cases.
DOJ-OGR-00000337.jpg
This legal document, page 9 of a court filing, argues against a defendant's proposal to hire private security guards as an alternative to pretrial detention. It cites numerous legal precedents from the Second Circuit and other district courts to assert that such arrangements create a conflict of interest, magnify flight risks, and foster unequal treatment based on wealth, which is contrary to the principles of the Bail Reform Act. The document highlights past cases where wealthy defendants on private security details violated the terms of their release.
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-00021707.jpg
This legal document presents an argument against Maxwell's interpretation of Section 3283 of the U.S. Code. The author refutes Maxwell's claim that the phrase "offense involving" requires a narrow, elements-based analysis, citing precedents like *Weingarten* and *Nijhawan* to support a broader, circumstance-specific approach. The document distinguishes the cases cited by Maxwell by arguing they involved different statutory language, specifically definitions of a "crime of violence," which are not present here.
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-00021339.jpg
This legal document is a page from a report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) analyzing former U.S. Attorney Acosta's handling of the Epstein case. OPR concludes that Acosta's decision to approve a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) for Epstein, which included an 18-month state sentence and a provision not to prosecute unidentified 'potential co-conspirators,' did not violate a clear and unambiguous Department policy and therefore did not constitute professional misconduct. The report distinguishes between 'transactional immunity' and 'use immunity' in its analysis of the agreement's terms.
DOJ-OGR-00021338.jpg
This legal document analyzes the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) for Jeffrey Epstein in light of the Department of Justice's 'Ashcroft Memo,' which mandates charging the 'most serious readily provable charge.' It contrasts the federal indictment for sex trafficking prepared by prosecutor Villafaña, which carried a 168-210 month sentence, with the eventual plea deal of an 18-month sentence on state charges. The document also reveals internal disagreement, with prosecutors Acosta, Sloman, Menchel, and Lourie perceiving risks in the federal case, while Villafaña and the CEOS Chief believed the charges were appropriate.
DOJ-OGR-00021243.jpg
This legal document details a professional dispute between Criminal Division Chief Menchel and another individual, Villafaña, concerning the Epstein investigation. The text includes a communication from Menchel asserting his authority and admonishing Villafaña for bypassing the chain of command, alongside conflicting statements made by both parties to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). Villafaña characterized Menchel's communication as intimidating, while Menchel claimed Villafaña had a history of resisting supervision, highlighting significant internal conflict over the handling of the case.
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-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-00010479.jpg
This legal document, filed on June 15, 2022, argues that Ms. Maxwell is entitled to a significant downward variance in her sentence. The argument is based on the extraordinary hardship she endured during her pretrial detention, which occurred entirely during the COVID-19 pandemic and amounted to solitary confinement. The filing cites legal precedents, such as United States v. Gonzalez and United States v. Brissett, where courts have granted 'hard-time credit' for similar punitive conditions.
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.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_023366.jpg
This document is a page from a Table of Authorities, likely from a legal brief or court opinion related to litigation surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks (specifically 2012 WL 257568). It lists various legal precedents (case law) alphabetically from 'Abrahams' to 'Chambers', including high-profile cases such as 'Ashcroft v. Iqbal' and several cases involving 'Obama' regarding detainees. The document bears a 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT' Bates stamp, indicating it was part of a document production to the House Oversight Committee, though the page itself contains no direct references to Jeffrey Epstein.
Charging and pursuing readily provable charges
The 'Ashcroft Memo' requires federal prosecutors to charge and pursue all readily provable charges that would yield the most substantial sentence, with some exceptions.
Prosecution requirements
The 'Ashcroft Memo' contains a requirement regarding the 'most serious readily provable offense', which was a factor in OPR's analysis of Acosta's decision.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity