EFTA00176504¶
Response¶
It applies to phone calls: - you have not asked your linguist to interpret because he could not find that the plain reading of “the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce”¶
is: NOT THE MAIL, NOT ANY FAILU T OR MEANS OF COMMERCE, JUST THE INTERNET¶
-The telephone is a facility or means of interstate commerce . (CITE)¶
-Where the statutory language is clear, there is no need to resort to legislative history, and [a court] certainly should not do so to undermine the plain meaning of the statutory language. Harris v. Garner 216 F.3d 970, 976 (11th Cir. 2000) (enthorc.)¶
EFTA00176505¶
It applies to indirect communications - Travel Agency cases¶
- “Parent pimp” cases
US . Bolen, 136 Fed. Appx. 325¶
(11th Cir. 2005); US v. Murrell,¶
368 F. 3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004)¶
US : Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306¶
(11th Cir. 2004)¶
- “Co-conspirator liability”: us Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006)
Sexual language doesn’t have to be used -victim doesn’t have to know purpose of -Prdjun v. US, 237 F. 799 (6th travel Circ. 1916)¶
EFTA00176506¶