Epstein Secrets

l court decisions watering down the “for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal sta

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei

r the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal st

l court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing such elasticity in federal criminal stat

uent travel, and that any sexual activity—legal or not—that occurred was incidental to the legitimate purposes that motivated his trips. See, e.g., Hansen, 291 U.S. at 562-63 ("[TJo say that, because [persons) indulge in illegal or immoral acts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to

uent travel, and that any sexual activity—legal or not—that occurred was incidental to the legitimate purposes that motivated his trips. See, e.g., Hansen, 291 U.S. at 562-63 ("[TJo say that, because [persons) indulge in illegal or immoral acts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to

uent travel, and that any sexual activity—legal or not—that occurred was incidental to the legitimate purposes that motivated his trips. See, e.g., Hansen, 291 U.S. at 562-63 ("[TJo say that, because [persons) indulge in illegal or immoral acts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to

uent travel, and that any sexual activity—legal or not—that occurred was incidental to the legitimate purposes that motivated his trips. See, e.g., Hansen, 291 U.S. at 562-63 ("[TJo say that, because [persons) indulge in illegal or immoral acts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to

uent travel, and that any sexual activity—legal or not—that occurred was incidental to the legitimate purposes that motivated his trips. See, e.g., Hansen, 291 U.S. at 562-63 ("[TJo say that, because [persons) indulge in illegal or immoral acts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen', Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with who

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen'. United States 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to U

e of § 2423 Cases, ixhibit 30, and make this case more like Hansen Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), and Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). In Hansen, the Supreme Court rejected charges against a woman traveling back to her home in the United States to "continue her irregular and improper conduct

entry [into the United States] cannot be said to be with the purpose `only that she might live in a state of concubinage."' 291 U.S. at 562. And in Mortensen, the Court likewise held that two women who took a trip from their home, returned home, and then resumed their illegal prostitution business did not