Epstein Secrets

ES, Circuit Judges. CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge. Ege, Boyd and Bruno have run afoul of the Mann Act.' A young California girl who had renamed herself Cindy was their pawn. As a child through the normal school years, Cindy had been moved from one foster home to another. After nine years of school, s

California and Nevada for the purposes of prostitu- tion." The indictment then related a list of fourteen overt acts• mainly incident to shuttling Cindy about the country. There was further amplification of the overt acts in a bill of particulars. A jury found Ege guilty on the first count which w

nder § 2422(b) requires a finding only of an intent to entice, not an intent to perform the sexual act following the persuasion); United States v. Murrell. 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir2004) (stat- ing that the underlying conduct that 2422(b) criminalizes is the persuasion of the minor, rather than t

d sexual conversations, tried to entice the victim by representa- tions about his car, house, and money, and went to a prearranged meeting place); Murrell, 368 F.3d at 1288 (holding that the evidence was sufficient where the defen- dant traveled two hours to meet a minor for sex in exchange for money,

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecut

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Mune!, 368 17.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

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), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecut

th the purported 13 year old girl, but with an undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts between Murrell and the agent occurred in internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F Vry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl'

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 EM at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutio

.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 in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecut

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States ' Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 F.3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecut

61 (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), is in the same mold, except that, in that tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 y

conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting operation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 EM at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutio

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11ih Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

t conviction was valid; it mattered not that the 14 year old was really an adult FBI agent engaged in a sting opiation, for the defendant "believed Cindy to be a minor and acted on that belief." 251 3d at 512. Our own survey of the cases brought in this district under §2422(b) confirms that prosecutio

r"o4-eit • „ , • _ w02, 01.4,1 \I! , , is ;fig 1/4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011951 EFTA00226739 Definitions of Inducument I) U.S. I Murrell, 3681. 3d 1283, 1287 (II" Cir. 2004). In a charge of violation §2422(b), the term "induce means to stimulate the occurrence of "or to" cause the min