Epstein Secrets

.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

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su

.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

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su

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

S.A.M. § 9-2.031A. Even if these prerequisites are satisfied, however, the Department retains substantial discretion to decline prosecution. As the Policy explains, "[s]atisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. Even then,