Epstein Secrets

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

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—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

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—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

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—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

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—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

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—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'. United States 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to U

R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA JANE DOE No. 101, Plaintiff, VS. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, 09 - 8059 1 Civil Action No. CIV-MARRP MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHNSON Etrpy ,fir DC INTAKE APR 1 7 2009 STEVEN M. LARIMORE CLERK U.S. OIST. CT. S.O. OF FLA. MIAMI COMPLAINT AND Defendant. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIA

tration Date. 03/24/2010 Registration Expiration Date: 03/31/2011 Associates Executives: Prior - 2 prior executive(sl found NO. NAME TITLE 1. Mortensen, Tammy DIRECTOR (03/25/1999) 2. Mortensen, Troy L DIRECTOR (03/25/1999) Registered Agents -1 registered agent(s) found NO. NAME ADDRESS ST

ication on appeal." Sou v. Gonzales, 450 F.3d 1, 6 n.11 (1st Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted here and throughout); accord Johnson v. United States, 734 F.3d 352, 360 (4th Cir. 2013). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00056843 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL DB

.7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen 'United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". . .an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be foun

T 44 EFTA00184629 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-44 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 2 !Y1110Prativin 09/19/200712:14 PM Judge Johnson has duty next week. Jay — I hate to have to be firm about this, but we need to wrap this up by Monday. I will not miss my indictment date when this

going determination, it is not necessary to examine the further contention of appellant that the judgment should be versed under authority of of Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369, 64 S.Ct. 1 . The judgment is reversed and the caw remanded with directions to enter judg- ment of acquittal. SANBOR

hort period in prison for punishment or other purposes but still needs supervision and trainin programs after release.")); see also United States Johnson. 529 U.S. 53. 59 (2000) ("The objectives of supervised release would be unfulfilled if excess prison time were to offset and reduce terms of super

.7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen' United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". ..an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found

tory at the clerk's office. On October 31, 2005, I responded to the courthouse and filed the paperwork along with an order to seal, signed by Judge Johnson, to deny any release of any paperwork on this case. INV CONTINUES.. **** ****** ******************NARRATIVE NA Reported By: Entered By.: # 13