Epstein Secrets

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

ted with an expectation that the principle will apply except 'when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.'" Id. (quoting Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson 343 U.S. 779, 783 (1952)). In this case, however, the Court need not take anything "as given." Even if the statute's language were not clear—which

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

tory at the clerk's office. On October 31, 2005, I responded to the courthouse and filed the paperwork along with an order to seal, signed by Judge Johnson, to deny any release of any paperwork on this case. INV CONTINUES.. **** ****** ******************NARRATIVE NA Reported By: Entered By.: # 13

ited Sexual Activity. Federal law criminalizes travel for the purpose of knowingly engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors. United States' Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004); United States I 7jikarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006). This is the highest level of culpability in the four