This document is a legal filing arguing for the dismissal of a petition due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central argument is that the Petitioners lack Article III standing because they cannot demonstrate a sufficient "injury in fact" that is redressable by the court. The filing cites numerous legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, to support its position on the requirements for standing.
This legal document, part of a court filing, argues that Ms. Maxwell must be sentenced under the 2003 Guidelines rather than the harsher 2004 Guidelines. It asserts that applying the 2004 Guidelines would violate the Ex Post Facto Clause unless a jury, not the judge, found that her criminal conduct continued past November 1, 2004. Since the jury made no such finding, the court is bound to use the earlier guidelines.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity