Epstein Secrets

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical worth used in different parts of the same act are in

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical worth used in different parts of the same act are in

her sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are int

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

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 arrange his sexual encounter" was sufficient to prove the use of a facility and means of interstate and foreign commerce). Ea