Epstein Secrets

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complet

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complet

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complet

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complet

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complet

rls for the purpose of coercing them into acts of prostitution." 18 U.S.C. § 2242(b). These bald allegations cannot survive a motion to dismiss. See Jabal, slip op. at 14 ("Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice."); Twombly, 55

is a clear statement that an amendment should apply retroactively to pre-enactment conduct. See, e.g., Hughes Aircraft Co.', United States ex rel. Schumer 520 U.S. 939, 952 (1997) ("Given the absence of a clear statutory expression of congressional intent to apply the 1986 amendment to conduct complete

ng in illicit activities with Plaintiff) or that his travel was specifically "designed to bring about such a result." Mortenson, 322 U.S. at 374. As Jabal and Twombly make clear, plaintiffs cannot withstand a motion to dismiss by baldy asserting that an offense occurred and holding out hope that they