Epstein Secrets

an Dershowitz, Esq. November 19, 2007 Page 14 interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").' Under these standards, the

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

t be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement") (emphasis added)• Cleveland v, United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").2 Under these standards, there i

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

t be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement") (emphasis added)• Cleveland United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").2 Under these standards, there is

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland I, United States 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").2 Under these standards, there

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive." ).r Under these standards, the

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

T]he only factual issue in the case was whether paitioners dominant purpose in making the trip was to facilitate her practice of prostitution. . .); Cleveland I United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence .. . that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive."). There is no basis for conc

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through

T]he only factual issue in the case was whether petitioners dominant purpose in making the trip was to facilitate her practice of prostitution.. .); Cleveland I United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive."). There is no basis for concl

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through