Epstein Secrets

ing a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. 8 Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of th

299 (11* Cir. 2003); United Stalest. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Burgess, 175 F.3d j261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11* Cir. 2005); United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United Stalest Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (116 Cir. 2004), i

g a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially ? To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of the

338 F. 1299 (11* Cir. 2 3); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11* Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is

a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modern life, especially ? To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. 8 Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of th

d 1299 (11'h Cir. 2003); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3d 261 (116 Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States' Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (I Cir. 2004)

ing a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. 8 Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of th

299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004),

g a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially 7 To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of the

(11* Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (II* Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I I° Cir. 2005); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 2002). United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004)

g a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modem life, especially 7 To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. ° Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of th

9 (11° Cir. 2003); United States it Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess,175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004)

a federal crime. Given the ubiquity of the telephone in modern life, especially 7 To confirm our view of the "plain meaning" of the words, we asked Steven Pinker, Johnstone Family Professor at Harvard University's Department of Psychology and a noted linguist, to analyze the statute to determine the natural

emplates necessarily that the means of communication must be the vehicle through which the persuading or enticing directly occurs. According to Dr. Pinker, that is the sole rational reading in the English language. See Letter annexed at Tab "A" at 3. Annexed at Tab "B" is a chart in which each of the

9); United States' Panfil, supra, 338 I 1299 (116 Cii 2003); United States v. 1999); United &awl Burgess, 175 .3d r61(II.Ci 1999); United States! Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States Root, 296 3d 1222 (11° Cir. 200 ). United States! Murrell, 368 II3d 1283 (114 Cir. 2004), is i