I recall reading that authorites decided not to charge Spitzer with the Mann Act because the prevailing purpose of the Act is to prevent minors from being subjected to White Slavery by pimps, and that was not the case with Spitzer, not does it appear, to be the case here either.

Can authorities in one juridiction make up their own minds about this when others have other guidelines?

It would seem to be a case of uneven enforcement of laws, if that is the case.

(still not a lawyer)

Re: Reading between the lines, I would have to guess that they really want him for something else

and that they are using this charge to put pressure on him.  The arrest on Sunday guaranteed a night in jail and was unnecessary given the nature of the charge.  

IMHO, they're fucking with him for something else he did.  Typical misuse of power and authority.

See article.

There was no mention of the Mann Act in the article.  The crime he was arrested for had nothing to do with the Mann Act.  Please try to get the facts straight stop guessing when it comes to legal matters.

A physician who moved to a rural community in the South and opened a medical clinic. He became involved in the community and was elected to the county board of supervisors. Based on this information alone I would say he is an asset to the community.

He decides to have sex with a female (sort of a natural desire for a male) then he is arrested. This arrest could ruin this man's career regardless of the final disposition of the case.  The FBI became involved which is all the more ridiculous which means he will be tried in Federal court.  The only reason I can imagine the FBI got involved is if he was somehow using his position as a public official when dealing with this "agency."  Regardless of the circumstances this whole thing is bizarre.

According to the article:
A co-worker informed the authorities...  of correspondance found on a work computer that they shared.  Duhh!
There have been a lot of threads recently about not using work computers.  This is a different twist on that...  
A second hand laptop would have been a good investment!
skb

The Feds are VERY patient, so keep that in mind...

1. Feds create a fake provider website with pics, contact info, the whole nine yards.
2. Feds over time create TER personalities, and begin submitting "reviews" for the fake provider.
3. Unsuspecting TER member make appointment with the fake provider.
a. If the fake provider and the client are from different states, he is charged with solicitation AND Mann Act violation
b. If the fake provider and client are from same state, he is (only) charged with solicitation - not a federal crime, so the Feds will have to work jointly with state/local officials
4. Repeat
5. TER begins to fall apart, as real and fake providers cannot be distinguished. Clients start to stay away from TER.
6. This will all be done in the name of "protecting girls from modern-day slavery."

“Solicitation in a chat room” even across state lines would not violate the Mann Act.

    He would have to go one step further and transport her across state lines, or at least persuade, induce, or entice her on her own to cross state lines for purposes of prostitution.

(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any   individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any  Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in
  prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be  charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be  fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or   both.

18 U.S.C. § 2422.

    The Mann Act looks to movement across state lines, not mere communication. The Travel Act, however, is a different story and the one most likely applicable to this kind of conduct.


    The article probably just got the facts a little off- he probably did entice her to cross state lines and that is the basis for the Mann Act charge.

"Travel Act" Does not seem to apply to JUST being a customer

Like many here I was surprised the Mann Act was the basis of arrest per the article.

But the Travel Act is the only other Federal Act that I know of and there is a Supreme Court denial of crt that seems to be clear you have to be more than JUST a customer to have the Travel Act apply.

In the case of the "circuit" case from Miami a defendant was claiming he was only a customer but the evidence showed he organized parties etc and was more than a mere customer.  The Supreme Court (or 11th Circuit see later for my confusion) in 2005 declined to hear his appeal.  But the  WRIT OF CERTIORARI seems to make it clear that only because he was NOT JUST a client that was why the appeal was denied.

Not being a lawyer I am confused about the fact that the case was "In the Supreme Court of the United States"  but it seems that certiorari was denied by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals vs the Supreme Court.. I am confused by:

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

When it also says its in the Supreme Court and I thought a writ of certioraii was always to ask the Supreme Court if they would take the case

He lost the appeal but the Brief seems clear the reason he lost was that he was MORE than a customer.

Other info:
Federal prosecutors alleged that Giorango promoted the Circuit operation of Miami madam Judy Krueger by encouraging her prostitutes to work from one of his Miami hotels and by using the women to entertain and entice his business associates. “There was a parasitic relationship between (Giorango) and Judy Krueger’s prostitution business,” federal prosecutors wrote in court papers.

Giorango declined to comment. In January, a federal jury in Miami convicted him of violating the Travel Act by using a telephone in interstate commerce to promote Krueger’s operation...

-- Modified on 5/20/2009 10:48:17 PM