Epstein Secrets

another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See also Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. Unikd Stales, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

See also United States v. Root 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (11'h Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005)• United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8'h Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- EFTA00605410 Alan Dershowitz, Esq. November 19, 2007 Page 9 20 (9ib Cir

n another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See so Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. UnitekStates, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

ee also United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (11'h Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10°' Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8° Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- 20 (9°' Cir. 2004). There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit race

.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

es1 Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 0th Cir. dealing with a minor was sufficient to make out the crime. See United States Root, 296 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8Ih Or. 2006); United States I Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (0 Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, ove