Epstein Secrets

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212914 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00212981 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221384 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00221481 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

e a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States v. Evans , 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate comm

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in

e a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States v. Evans , 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate comm

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in

cently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- EFTA00189770 Case 9:09-cv-80591-KAM Document 29 Entered on F

"[T]he government must show that the criminal sexual act was a dominant purpose of the trip, not a merely incidental one.") (citing United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004)) (emphasis added). That interpretation of the law is obviously correct. While § 2423(b) is relatively new—it firs

a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate comm

engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in i

e a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States v. Evans , 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate comm

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in

e a minor to engage in prostitution, even though no evidence was introduced that the calls were routed through interstate channels. United States v. Evans , 476 F.3d 1176, 1180 (11th Cir. 2007). The Eleventh Circuit then held: Telephones and cellular telephones are instrumentalities of interstate comm

d engage in illegal sexual activity. In other words, the illegal sexual activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in