Back to Network
4
Shared Docs
4
Same-Page
4 / 4
Mentions
Document Mentions (4 shared documents)
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th
on in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since it concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation"and
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th
on in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since it concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th
on in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since it concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an
Sponsored
2 mentions1 same-page
Page ?Same page
sion of the statute. (Def. Mot. 2 at 6-7). The defendant's argument on this point is both misleading and unpersuasive. The defendant quotes Senator Patrick Leahy's comments on the 2003 conference committee report to the effect that "the conference agreed to drop language from the original House-passed bill th
on in Bridges v. United States, 346 U.S. 209 (1953), which concerned the Wartime Suspension of Limitations Act ("WSLA"). (Def. Mot. 2 at 12-14). But Bridges is inapposite, since it concerned a statute "[t]he legislative history of [which] emphasize[d] the propriety of its conservative interpretation" an
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (457)
Entities connected to both Patrick Leahy and Bridges
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON30 w/ Patrick·28 w/ Bridges
United States
LOCATION21 w/ Patrick·21 w/ Bridges
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON14 w/ Patrick·26 w/ Bridges
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON19 w/ Patrick·21 w/ Bridges
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION17 w/ Patrick·20 w/ Bridges
Prince Andrew
PERSON23 w/ Patrick·12 w/ Bridges
Leahy
PERSON14 w/ Patrick·21 w/ Bridges
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Patrick·8 w/ Bridges
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON16 w/ Patrick·17 w/ Bridges
FBI
ORGANIZATION13 w/ Patrick·19 w/ Bridges
George W. Bush
PERSON22 w/ Patrick·9 w/ Bridges
Reid Weingarten
PERSON9 w/ Patrick·22 w/ Bridges
Eric Holder
PERSON9 w/ Patrick·21 w/ Bridges
Julie K. Brown
PERSON20 w/ Patrick·9 w/ Bridges
Donald Trump
PERSON21 w/ Patrick·7 w/ Bridges
Colorado
LOCATION21 w/ Patrick·7 w/ Bridges
Hernandez
PERSON7 w/ Patrick·21 w/ Bridges
SC
Schneider
PERSON8 w/ Patrick·20 w/ Bridges
TR
Tracy
PERSON8 w/ Patrick·19 w/ Bridges
CO
Collins
PERSON6 w/ Patrick·20 w/ Bridges