ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Otto v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr

ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Otto v. Milwaukee Cnty., 2007 WL 3228118, at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr

sexual conduct upon which it is based. 2422(b); 2423; 2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(B) Not Consummated Sin U.S. v. Doyle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1 1429 (E.D. Wis. 2007) Internet No information available but appears to have showed up for meeting arranged through Internet. 2422(b); 2423; 2252(a)(2) & (a)(4)(B)

TS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE E.D. Wis. U.S. I Davidson, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 95757 E.D. ( Wis. 2006); U.S. I Doyle, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11429 (E.D. Wis. 2007) Internet Defendant pretending to be a 16 yr-old gay teen approached a "15 yr-old male teen" on the Internet; engaged in sexually explicit commu

ion back in terms of lost evidence due to the passage of time or inadequate time for discovery. See Oslo I. Milwaukee Cnty.. 2007 WL 3228118. at *2 (E.D. Wis. 2007) (no evidence of prejudice; additional plaintiffs allowed). In fact, some jurisdictions require the opposing party to bear the burden of proving pr