Epstein Secrets

t she could depart downward. 17 EFTA01729501 • COURT .. .... r %. • AS' - -.. *AMITY :. OO)$/g.PNOWNICAtI0N, ' ' , COAR.qE..- , U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (61h Cir. 2000 ) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

bail because not a flight risk. • 72 EFTA01729556 0:00 ., • ' CASES . 1, , - P FACILITY• . -,Piketglcial4patigfciaroN :cuact • U.S. v. Tykarsky, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2567 (E.D. Pa. 2004) • Internet Internet chat room "Iloveoldermen2" initiated communications with "14 yr-old"; sexually

et her for sex and had sex with her. Pled guilty but appealed 100 month, 5yr supervision & fines. Affirmed. 2422(6); 2423(b) Consummated U.S v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3rd Cir. 2006) Internet Internet chat room "Iloveoldermen2"; defendant initiated 114 chat with "14 yr- old"; indicated interest

at she could depart downward. 17 EFTA00079430 {nv , . ,..y..4 .,,p.th : I r . j"'T ' -77 SS aks24.2-2.(b: 74;11-. 1~.9 iwic.# U.S. v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform

flight risk. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting 72 EFTA00079485 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE.: U.S. v. Tykarsky, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2567 (E.D. Pa. 2004) Internet Internet chat room "lloveoldermen2" defendant initiated communications with "14 yr-old"; s

t her for sex and had sex with her. Pled guilty but appealed 100 month, 5yr supervision & fines. Affirmed. 2422(b); 2423(b) Consummated U.S. v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458 (3'd Cir. 2006) Internet Internet chat room "Iloveoldermen2"; defendant initiated IM chat with "14 yr- old"; indicated interest i

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (02' Cu. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of t

el for the Purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activities. United States v, Hayward 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Tykarsky 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006): EFTA00214725 12/07/07 FRI 15:39 FAI 1 213 880 8500 R I RMANDRELL I S 1.1.P lib 0 21 Alan Dcrshowitz, Esq. D

of jurisdiction because judge knew that she could depart downward. 19 EFTA00224153 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. I Bailey, 228 F.3d 637 (6s Cir. 2000) Internet Defendant contacted minors through Internet; used graphic language describing how he wanted to perform o

ey were supposed to meet. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting Allowed to be released on bail because not a flight risk. U.S.' Tykarsky, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS Internet Internet chat room "Iloveoldemien2" defendant initiated communications with 2422(b); 2423 Sting 2567 (E.D. Pa

enge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or enticesminors. United States' Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States'. Pcmfil, 338 F.3d 1° Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any cal may claim to h

nvince, or to try to convince, her to engage in conduct proscribed by law, the statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. See United States'. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 470 (3d Cir. 2006) (both §§ 2422(b) and 2423(6) "fall squarely Congress's power to regulate the first two categories of activities d

said to act purposefully if 'he consciously desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct.' United States !Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980), quoting United Slates u United Slates Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 22, 445 (1978).7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted

he purpose of knowingly engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors. United States Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004); United Stales v Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006). This is the highest level of culpability in the four tier hierarchy of culpability that the Model Penal Codc uses

e to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to

vince, or to try to convince, her to engage in conduct proscribed by law, the statute may not be unconstitutional on its face. See United States v. Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 470 (3d Cir. 2006) (both §§ 2422(b) and 2423(b) "fall squarely within Congress's power to regulate the first two categories of activ