mirror-epstein-docs/results/IMAGES002/DOJ-OGR-00005196.json

{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "18 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 18 of 22 13 When 18 USC 3299 was passed in 2006 it was not made retro active, Presumably because it included the new offenses. It also has no physical abuse because as explained physical abuse is a part of 109A. This solution leaves all 2252/3 terms accounted for. Lockhart supra. Summary Whether or not the §3509(a)(e) definition of sexual abuse is used, child pornography / exploitation offenses are not included, and the repercussion of this should not be understated. There is compelling evidence showing the Justice Department has always been aware of it. As demonstrated, sexual exploitation is not included in \"sexual or physical abuse\" and sexual exploitation was removed from the proposals! Adding child pornography offense via §3509(a)(e) causes superfluity. Repose is mandated by Supreme Court precedent, if precedent means anything at all. Finally, in both the House and Senate congress said the VCAA was for enclaves. see Cong. Rec. Senate June 28, 1990 p. 16238 \"... Protect children in Federal Courts, in Federal facilities, and on Federal lands, and House Report no 101-681 (I), Sept 5, 1990 p 6572. DOJ-OGR-00005196",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "When 18 USC 3299 was passed in 2006 it was not made retro active, Presumably because it included the new offenses. It also has no physical abuse because as explained physical abuse is a part of 109A. This solution leaves all 2252/3 terms accounted for. Lockhart supra.",
      "position": "top"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Summary",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "handwritten",
      "content": "Whether or not the §3509(a)(e) definition of sexual abuse is used, child pornography / exploitation offenses are not included, and the repercussion of this should not be understated. There is compelling evidence showing the Justice Department has always been aware of it. As demonstrated, sexual exploitation is not included in \"sexual or physical abuse\" and sexual exploitation was removed from the proposals! Adding child pornography offense via §3509(a)(e) causes superfluity. Repose is mandated by Supreme Court precedent, if precedent means anything at all. Finally, in both the House and Senate congress said the VCAA was for enclaves. see Cong. Rec. Senate June 28, 1990 p. 16238 \"... Protect children in Federal Courts, in Federal facilities, and on Federal lands, and House Report no 101-681 (I), Sept 5, 1990 p 6572.",
      "position": "middle"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00005196",
      "position": "bottom"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [],
    "organizations": [
      "Justice Department",
      "Supreme Court"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "Federal Courts",
      "Federal facilities",
      "Federal lands",
      "House",
      "Senate"
    ],
    "dates": [
      "10/12/21",
      "June 28, 1990",
      "Sept 5, 1990",
      "2006"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 338",
      "§3509(a)(e)",
      "18 USC 3299",
      "109A",
      "2252/3",
      "101-681 (I)",
      "VCAA",
      "DOJ-OGR-00005196"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing with handwritten notes discussing legal matters related to child pornography and exploitation offenses. The text references various legal codes and congressional records."
}