Epstein Secrets

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

ver agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Eleven

im" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love, 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent

er agent's cellular telephone. Although both the defendant and the agent were in Georgia, the signals to the agent's cell phone had to pass through VoiceStream's Jacksonville, Florida switching center. The defendant argued that he did not know or intend that the call pass in interstate commerce. The Elevent

" under this statute, cannot be charged, so Epstein is named alone. See, e.g., United States v. Love , 592 F.2d 1022, 1025 (8th Cir. 1979) (citing Gebardi v. United States , 287 U.S. 112, 118-19 (1932)). Just as with Section 2423(b), the Government must prove that the defendant had the requisite intent