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
rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision 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
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
rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision 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
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
rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision 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
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
rities at all. Instead, the defendant asks the Court to apply an "essential ingredients" test, relying heavily upon the Supreme Court's decision 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
Sponsored
Mutual Connections (396)
Entities connected to both Patrick Leahy and Bridges v. United States
Jeffrey Epstein
PERSON30 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATION25 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Prince Andrew
PERSON23 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
George W. Bush
PERSON22 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
United States
LOCATION21 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Colorado
LOCATION21 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Julie K. Brown
PERSON20 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
ET
Emmy Taylor
PERSON19 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
George Mitchell
PERSON19 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Minnesota
LOCATION19 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Michael Jackson
PERSON18 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Michigan
LOCATION18 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Supreme Court
ORGANIZATION17 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Scarlett Johansson
PERSON16 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Oregon
LOCATION15 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
MW
Martin Weinberg
PERSON15 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Chris Tucker
PERSON15 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Virginia Giuffre
PERSON17 w/ Patrick·3 w/ Bridges
Barneys New York
ORGANIZATION15 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges
Ghislaine Maxwell
PERSON14 w/ Patrick·5 w/ Bridges