Epstein Secrets

statute applies only if the defendant's dominant motive for interstate travel was to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Tvkarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incide

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

statute applies only if the defendant's dominant motive for interstate travel was to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Tvkarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incide

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

statute applies only if the defendant's dominant motive for interstate travel was to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Tvkarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incide

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

statute applies only if the defendant's dominant motive for interstate travel was to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Tvkarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incide

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha

statute applies only if the defendant's dominant motive for interstate travel was to engage in unlawful sexual activity. See, e.g., United States v. Tvkarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incide

the removal of language from draft legislation as proof that the enacted bill carried the same meaning. Instead, courts draw the opposite inference. Russello 464 U.S. at 23-24 ("Where Congress includes limiting language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed tha