mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00003660.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "8",
    "document_number": "206",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 22\n\nAs Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum (\"Mem.\") has demonstrated, proper application of Landgraf prohibits retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment. Congressional intent could not be clearer; Congress considered and expressly rejected a provision that would have made the 2003 Amendment retroactive. That ends the Landgraf inquiry at step one. Even if the inquiry proceeds to step two, however, the government has failed to adequately rebut Ms. Maxwell's showing that application of the 2003 Amendment here would have impermissible retroactive effects.\n\nA. Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and Rejected a Proposal to Do So.\n\n1. Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor.\n\n\"[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs.\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum demonstrated, congressional intent with respect to the retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment is clear: the House version of the bill included an express retroactivity provision, the Senate version contained no retroactivity provision, and, in the words of one of the bill's co-sponsors, the House-Senate conference \"agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.\" Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003). The Court need look no further. Such an unambiguous expression of congressional intent establishes conclusively that the 2003 Amendment is not retroactive.\n\nThe government argues that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision is not probative, because according to Senator Leahy's floor statement, the decision was grounded in concerns about the revival of time-barred charges rather than the extension of live charges, and at least some of the charges here were live at the time of the 2003 Amendment. But to the extent\n\n3\n\nDOJ-OGR-00003660",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 206 Filed 04/16/21 Page 8 of 22",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum (\"Mem.\") has demonstrated, proper application of Landgraf prohibits retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment. Congressional intent could not be clearer; Congress considered and expressly rejected a provision that would have made the 2003 Amendment retroactive. That ends the Landgraf inquiry at step one. Even if the inquiry proceeds to step two, however, the government has failed to adequately rebut Ms. Maxwell's showing that application of the 2003 Amendment here would have impermissible retroactive effects.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "A. Step One: Congress Did Not Expressly Prescribe Retroactivity and Rejected a Proposal to Do So.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "1. Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision ends the inquiry at step one in Ms. Maxwell's favor.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "\"[W]here the congressional intent is clear, it governs.\" Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 264 (quoting Kaiser Aluminum & Chem. Corp. v. Bonjorno, 494 U.S. 827, 837 (1990)). As Ms. Maxwell's opening memorandum demonstrated, congressional intent with respect to the retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment is clear: the House version of the bill included an express retroactivity provision, the Senate version contained no retroactivity provision, and, in the words of one of the bill's co-sponsors, the House-Senate conference \"agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill that would have extended the limitations period retroactively.\" Senator Leahy, Amber Legislation, Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147 (2003). The Court need look no further. Such an unambiguous expression of congressional intent establishes conclusively that the 2003 Amendment is not retroactive.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "The government argues that Congress' explicit rejection of a retroactivity provision is not probative, because according to Senator Leahy's floor statement, the decision was grounded in concerns about the revival of time-barred charges rather than the extension of live charges, and at least some of the charges here were live at the time of the 2003 Amendment. But to the extent",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "3",
      "position": "bottom"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003660",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Ms. Maxwell",
      "Senator Leahy"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "Congress",
      "House",
      "Senate",
      "Court"
    ],
    "locations": [],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "2003"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 206",
      "511 U.S. 264",
      "494 U.S. 827",
      "Cong. Rec. 149:50, S5147",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003660"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to the case of Ms. Maxwell. The text discusses the retroactive application of the 2003 Amendment and cites various legal precedents and congressional records. The document is well-formatted and free of significant damage or redactions."
}