Epstein Secrets

system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts, 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (1 I th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, •3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (fmding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to ar

ability to Epstein for his sexual gratification. Epstein's behavior seems to fall squarely within the language of the statute as written, including the Eleventh Circuit's pattern jury instruction.' In conducting research, however, all cases charged under this section involved undercover "sting" operations. I contacted

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ability to Epstein for his sexual gratification. Epstein's behavior seems to fall squarely within the language of the statute as written, including the Eleventh Circuit's pattern jury instruction. F In conducting research, however, all cases charged under this section involved undercover "sting" operations. I contac

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ability to Epstein for his sexual gratification. Epstein's behavior seems to fall squarely within the language of the statute as written, including the Eleventh Circuit's pattern jury instruction. F In conducting research, however, all cases charged under this section involved undercover "sting" operations. I contac

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ein for his sexual gratification. EFTA02857824 Epstein's behavior seems to fall squarely within the language of the statute as written, including the Eleventh Circuit's pattern jury instruction. In conducting research, however, all cases charged under this section involved undercover "sting" operations. I contacte