Embedded Files
The following shows how my case actually is under federal jurisdiction and a theory why the US Attorney's office did not prosecute :
TITLE 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I - CRIMES
CHAPTER 117 - TRANSPORTATION FOR ILLEGAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY AND RELATED CRIMES
Sec. 2421. Transportation generally
STATUTE
Whoever knowingly transports any individual in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, with intent that such individual 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 10 years, or both.
"transports-interstate"= "cross state lines", is stated 6 times, transport 2 times at the plea hearing :
p7
p10
p11
p12
from the sentencing hearing :
p3
8 times federal jurisdiction is referenced, but the Court never mentioned this legal fact. Why? I allege such mention would instantly bring up the obvious issue why the US Attorney's office never prosecuted my case, which only serves to question why Danielle Pieper persued the case against me.
But, ironically, it is Danielle Pieper that indicates the other obvious jurisdiction, California, saying from above sentencing, lines 7-8, "...in the state of California, which my understanding is they're not going to prosecute 'cause I've spoken to the the jurisdictions up and down Marin County.".
All of which just reinforces specifically why Nevada ended up with "waiving defects/fictitious charge", where California and the federal government followed "in the interest of Justice", and declined to prosecute a case without any factual basis. I allege it is nothing more than pure prejudice, a 50 year old with a 16 year old and public opinion on sex trafficking article, especially in Las Vegas.
More weighted prejudice, this case: source page
And (my allegations) the State resorted to court record fraud to "create" a sudo factual basis.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse