{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "19 of 22",
    "document_number": "338",
    "date": "10/12/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": true,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 19 of 22 14 Reporting of Child Abuse There is one final consideration that no court has analyzed regarding §3509(a) and §3283. The question arises why was the limitation put in §3509(k) as the first sentence of Civil Reporting Stay language. The Stay language is relevant to section 226 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647). See CRS Report to Congress 91-69 Gov, January 11, 1991 page 3. The report says the statute of limitation is also a Section 226 component. One could easily assume that §3509(k) was enacted to supercede the statute of limitations for Federal Tort Claim Act State Statutes. And, despite what the government has said in numerous cases concerning the statute of limitations, it wasn't \"simply mould\" to §3283 in 1994, It was intact moved as part of a \"conforming Repeal.\"2 Sec 33001§ of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The generic language of §3283 would have been perfect for FTCA applications. The October 27, 1990 rollout report of the Crime Control Act doesn't discuss or even mention any extended limitation. 2. Under the oversight of Jack Brooks, Ref. TX DOJ-OGR-00005197",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 338 Filed 10/12/21 Page 19 of 22 14",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Reporting of Child Abuse There is one final consideration that no court has analyzed regarding §3509(a) and §3283. The question arises why was the limitation put in §3509(k) as the first sentence of Civil Reporting Stay language. The Stay language is relevant to section 226 of the Crime Control Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-647). See CRS Report to Congress 91-69 Gov, January 11, 1991 page 3. The report says the statute of limitation is also a Section 226 component. One could easily assume that §3509(k) was enacted to supercede the statute of limitations for Federal Tort Claim Act State Statutes. And, despite what the government has said in numerous cases concerning the statute of limitations, it wasn't \"simply mould\" to §3283 in 1994, It was intact moved as part of a \"conforming Repeal.\"2 Sec 33001§ of the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. The generic language of §3283 would have been perfect for FTCA applications. The October 27, 1990 rollout report of the Crime Control Act doesn't discuss or even mention any extended limitation.",
      "position": "main body"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "2. Under the oversight of Jack Brooks, Ref. TX",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005197",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Jack Brooks"
    ],
    "organizations": [],
    "locations": [
      "TX"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/12/21",
      "January 11, 1991",
      "October 27, 1990"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "338",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005197",
      "P.L. 101-647",
      "91-69 Gov"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing discussing the statute of limitations in the context of child abuse reporting. The text is mostly handwritten, with some printed elements in the header and footer. The document is in fair condition, with some minor signs of wear and tear."
}