Epstein Secrets

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

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen v. Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with whom she w

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

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen v. Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with whom she w

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

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen v. Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with whom she w

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

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen v. Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with whom she w

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

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen v. Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with whom she w