Epstein Secrets

e.g. with himself or a third party), without then actually committing any sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (111b Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to crim

person, regardless of that person's age. Rather, it criminalizes travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activities. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. TvIcarskv, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006): The relationship between the mess rea and

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

"[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

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

"[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

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

"[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

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

"[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

acility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

"[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

e.g. with himself or a third party), without then actually committing any sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cu. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to crimi

person, regardless of that person's age. Rather, it criminalizes travel for the purpose of engaging in unlawful sexual activities. Unkd State4 v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004). Sec also United States v. Tykarslcy, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006): EFTA01718552 12/07/07 FRI 15:39 FAX 1