DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
707 KB
Extraction Summary
6
People
6
Organizations
2
Locations
2
Events
0
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Court filing / handwritten legal notes
File Size:
707 KB
Summary
This document is a page of handwritten legal notes filed on October 12, 2021, as part of Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE (USA v. Ghislaine Maxwell). The text presents a legal argument focusing on 'Plain Language' statutory interpretation, specifically distinguishing between 'exploitation' and 'sexual or physical abuse.' The author cites several legal precedents (Patterson v. Schriro, US v. Pharis, US v. Dodge) and criticizes the Fifth Circuit for ignoring guidance regarding statutory construction and the misfiling of statute of limitation language in 1990.
People (6)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Patterson | Litigant |
Named in case citation Patterson v. Schriro
|
| Schriro | Litigant |
Named in case citation Patterson v. Schriro
|
| Pharis | Litigant |
Named in case citation United States v. Pharis
|
| Dodge | Litigant |
Named in case citation United States v. Dodge
|
| Lavine | Legislator/Sponsor |
Associated with H.R. 4688 (1990)
|
| Downey | Legislator/Sponsor |
Associated with H.R. 3958 (1990)
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Congress |
Legislative body mentioned regarding intent and language
|
|
| Western Protectors Ins. Co. |
Named in legal citation
|
|
| United States District Court of Arizona |
Cited as Dist AZ
|
|
| Western District of Washington |
Cited as W.D. WA
|
|
| 5th Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as 5th Cir. and criticized for ignoring guidance
|
|
| 11th Circuit Court of Appeals |
Cited as 11th Cir.
|
Locations (2)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Location of cited district court case
|
|
|
Location of cited district court case (W.D. WA)
|
Key Quotes (4)
"When Congress wants to include exploitation they say so."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
Quote #1
"To dermine the meaning of a statute, we first look to the text of the statute itself, if the statute is unambiguous, the statute should be enforced as written"Source
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
Quote #2
"This guidance was ignored entirely by the Fifth Circuit."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
Quote #3
"First, the court ignored the fact that the statute of limitation was misfiled for completely unknown reasons as the first sentence of Civil Stay language at §3509(k) in 1990."Source
DOJ-OGR-00005186.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (1,302 characters)
Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 8 of 22
Plain Language
When Congress wants to include exploitation they say so. See Patterson v. Schriro, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 87501 (Dist AZ 2009) (treating 'sexual or physical abuse seperate from exploitation'); Western Protectors Ins. Co. ... 624 F. Supp 2d 1292 (W.D. WA, 2009) (Same); United States v. Pharis, 176 F. 3d 434, 436 (5th Cir. 1999) (Same). Also see 18 USC §1101(A)(43)(a) versus (1). "To dermine the meaning of a statute, we first look to the text of the statute itself, if the statute is unambiguous, the statute should be enforced as written ... If the language is ambiguous, legislative history can be helpful to determine Congressional intent.' 'Statutory Construction ... is a holistic endeavor' we cannot read a single word or provision of the statute in isolation." United States v. Dodge, 597 F.3d 1347, 1352 (11th Cir. 2010).
This guidance was ignored entirely by the Fifth Circuit. First, the court ignored the fact that the statute of limitation was misfiled for completely unknown reasons as the first sentence of Civil Stay language at §3509(k) in 1990. Several proposals targetted the limitations, Chapter (213) from the start. See Lavine H.R. 4688, May 4, 1990, Downey H.R. 3958 Feb 6, 1990.
DOJ-OGR-00005186
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document