Epstein Secrets

gress, and administration policy statements intended in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 prosecutions. Evans, and his co-conspirators (Madison and Yearby) were not "Johns." They operated a for profit prostitution ring marked by control of, and extreme violence toward, the victims, who they knew were underage. Indeed,

to engage in a criminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18.) (emphasis added). Again, none of these factors is present in this case. The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the statute makes perfect sense: were § 1591 not limited in this fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized be

gress, and administration policy statements intended in 18 U.S.C. § 1591 prosecutions. Evans, and his co-conspirators (Madison and Yeasty) were not "Johns." They operated a for profit prostitution ring marked by control of, and extreme violence toward, the victims, who they knew were underage. Indeed,

to engage in a criminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18.) (emphasis added). Again, none of these factors is present in this case. The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the statute makes perfect sense: were § 1591 not limited in this fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized be

"substantially enhanced" forms of punishment in order to vindicate federal interests, and given that the federal government does not itself require "Johns" to register as federal sex offenders, it is hard to see how State-law sex-offender registration can fairly be characterized as necessary to vindic

at (a) force or coercion would be used to cause Owens to engage in a criminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18." (emphasis added). The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the statute makes perfect sense: were § 1591 not limited in that fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized be

s traditional pimps—those who recruit underage women and influence or require them to engage in sexual acts with third parties—not the third- party "Johns" who unwittingly solicit an underage prostitute acting under the influence of a pimp. Needless to say, there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Eps

nduce criminal sexual activity at some point after such use, or if the defendant does not actually induce during the use, § 2422(b) does not apply. The Eleventh Circuit's Pattern Jury Instructions recognize as much. According to those Instructions, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: First: That the