Epstein Secrets

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (76 Cir. 2006) (2423(b) Conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA01729485 U.S. v. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state cons

. by private organization 9 EFTA01729493 COStiT.-; o " " )., ' PPe≥-em tMoittkiccig co.. A1v!. . .. , p,watqw:, • . 5th Cir. U.S. v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001) Internet Defendant met "14 yr-old"through IM chat; defendant kept in contact with her through Internet and attemp

at rooms, necessarily involves interstate communications and therefore constitutes the "use of facility of interstate commerce." United States Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306, 1311 (11th Cir.2004). At trial, Defendant admitted that he communicated with "Conrad" using email and Internet instant messag

th Cir.2 5); United States Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir.2 ); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 227-29 (11th ir.2002); United States Farner, 251 F.3di 510, 513 (5th Cir.200 ; United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir.2000). Page 7 *782 [1] To convict under § 2422(b). the Gove

e simply by employing an intennediary to carry out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005

used by the defendant, an all but irrefutable case showing the clear knowledge and intent of the defendant. A prototypical case is United States v. Farner, 251 F.3d 510 (5* Cir. 2001), where the defendant participated, over time, in instant messaging, e-mail, and follow-up telephone calls with a perso