a round trip exception for sex related travel for instance in this case judge sanchez properly applied one soon to enter the quote on count two on the charge of transporting the alleged victim romans ever of home to russia to return to his specifically to the argument i understand that government making that mr schneider wasn't on the return leg of a round trip he would he would he grew up the victim off and then he went about his business including going back to moscow i know that's not correct there is no evidence whatsoever that the fed insider ever left behind states b out the testimony from romans out rough for an idea on a of the appendix is that the defendant stayed with him during that he spent a few days ago when in the beginning of the trip then went up to new york where his problem was located and then came back to berlin at the end if there's no evidence whatsoever that he left the cult to do any criminal acts whatsoever during that trip there was even accepting mr schneider's assertions about what he did he was not pleasure tripping take a shining he was he was on a business trip dropped sabur off goes to new york does business then he comes he comes as he comes in get sabur off is taken back they say that's not the return leg of a pleasure that's he was off to his own thing so mortenson doesn't apply that's what i understand t in which the defendants were involved was the business of operating a house of prostitution therefore if the defendants in mortenson were conducting their business while on vacation they would not have had an innocent trip it had to be the fact of the vacation that made it innocent but have been affected by that work i pay someone who is employed as an attorney for an american law firm in russia does some work while he's back obligated to and should be the federal government's pretty quick they say as you know of course the reason people come home from vacation is to get back to work and therefore do you draw for loaners when they were coming back to grand isle in the basket which by the way is not an island it's a city from of forty the cases decided forty four the charge at that time was under the original man correct correct in the poor larry to that act which involve the transport of an individual for purposes of sexual abuse with the intent to engage in such a corollary to that is a statute that was part of count two which was section twenty four twenty one correct and that is correct ok so if you agree with me that the two statutes that you compare is the original mann act and want to count two which was which  could any rational i'm sure could any rational juror have found that mr schneider had at least one of his purposes to sexually  judge to accept the government's argument that twenty four twenty three d focuses on that defend it as opposed to the original mann act count that you the original meaning and the mann act is amended that that you prevailed wrong about that both both statutes focus on the intent of the defendant what the second count focus on the intent of the defendant in transporting the minor the first count focuses on the intent the defendant transporting himself and  groom wanting to encourage one deep in the relationship it depends how does that speak to that but what i'm trying to say is that if you accept that mortenson applies to twenty four twenty three b then when you cannot artificially look at the return l saying i might be misunderstanding government but i take their argument to be not that they're separating the legs of the trip but they're saying the trip from schneider's perspective isn't innocent it's not a minute it's not a pleasure trip it's not even an innocent business trip it's a trip which among other things is designed to further the relationship with several people his dependents and create more of that sexual relationship that he wants and doesn't that get back to my was not charged to the jury in this case already the more in some cases that he she was decided by the appellate court based on the record that had existed following trial and what the u s supreme court said i don't repeat myself is that you can't just focus solely on reply back to russia every one of those years without safra now the only way that sat rock to come to the united states which is what sat rock wanted to do on his own that was his goal to become famous in the united states was as a result of kind of snyder green to accompany him said rational issues are directly kind of rational sure except that well again i always circle back to the fact that you don't think you can focus artificially i'm going to try to write but if you can't then then the question is you know he's been in the united states by himself after school that it was on to judge vicious question hit the jury think of that purpose to be at least one of his purposes but you've got to take it a step further and you've got to say that was not one of his purposes going back to russia that's the civically one of his right because there is no obligations our right to return to living with snyder following the week that he spent with his family very couple thousand and eleven is that twenty four twenty three b only twenty four twenty three c which can't affect in two thousand and three is the fences complete when the travel occurs and that this is a sex related travel offense that is complete before any sexual abuse takes place because again just focusing on even the actual facts of this case the sat roughly back with his family for a under the statute it extends the statue of limitations you need to have an offense involving the sexual or physical abuse of a child under the age of eighteen and that that can describe certain types of offenses under twenty four twenty three b but only if you focus anything that's a course he case we do rely upon in connection with his argument by acknowledging that this court has said that it could be a make believe victim i don't think tyco see as i read it had anything to do with expanding the statute of limitations this is certainly a question of where i can enjoy sex with them that's this session of the government why isn't it appropriate for them to say look that is the purpose that's the men's right that's happening that's part of the measure that's going on  think that requires sexual or physical abuse of a child actually be required by the offense itself i don't want to talk about statue limitations take you back to the me issue are we the words dominant purpose i think that's what the charge to the jury here was i know that some courts have criticized that language as maybe being imprecise or whatever but you know we think that we whether it's motivating purpose or dominant purpose or whatever but it certainly does have to be an important purpose and and we think that if you look at the purpose of the trip as a whole that that there is no evidence that kind of cider took this trip which he takes every year anyway no evidence the government posits that there is evidence that there is evidence from testimony that said the only reasons everyone was in schneider's apartment in moscow was because he was promised parents were promised or he was promised i can make a valid start and he was promised among other things i can get you to expose you to the valley world outside of moscow i can get you united states that these things according to romans of us parents that he would be unable to continue going to the bus or school was by even within the dormitories or living close up in dormitory but by the to the school that he could go by itself and so and  twenty four twenty three first of all three varying doesn't know thing does not actually that's a case cited by the defense out of his seventh circuit and it does not extend in that case the defendant suggested  conduct destructive toward travel with the intent to engage in specific types of sexual activity and with a minor so is that is that enough to where you need to go  reason the court was correct in keeping count one is because of the factual distinction between these two cases and more than saying you have a husband and wife who run a profit and this is not instant decides that she wants to go visit her parents in another state and they decide they're going on a trip wanted to do that he had better chance that that's not innocent i'm going to go to ballet school it's not considered from the perspective of a child as your own has pointed out it's considered from the perspective of the defendant and i think it's important to note that this is a ballet trip yes ok that's why i'm arguing about the distinction in facts between the two cases where you do have what could be fairly characterized as an innocent round trip in more instance verses a trip with extremely nefarious purposes in this case where you have  a defendant trolling a children's ballet school with a video camera identifies a child who's desperate to stay there because his family can't afford to keep them there makes the family indebted to him by moving at four hundred seventy let's have a hypothetical i live in new york city in an apartment with a young ballet dancer i prefer to attend delhi school in new jersey and i have a driver who present and it would be up to the jury to determine whether on that particular trip is significant or not evading purpose of that trip that's the language used in hayward opinion in the third circuit whether significant or motivating purpose doesn't have to be the dominant purpose whether  what does a dominant purpose mean and it is provided the language is significant motivating purpose as opposed to the dominant purpose suggesting that there is only one purpose and it has to be that one ok so a corpus that i promised etc i it's fairly clear cut in this case that when you have a different in on videotape talking to the child about his opportunity to be a ballet star in america and dangling that carrot in front of him and then going on that very trip and there are ongoing relationship where he's engaging in side of me in oral copulation with this child multiple times a week over the course of a year leading up to his trip there are discussions about if you stay with me issues the therapist's notes came in which according to the notes themselves that were off indicated concerned that he had committed perjury and that was according to the you give us another measure here well the fact of the matter was they were offered an additional deposition of revenge in the civil suit so that they could identify what ever this alleged perjury misstatement was and they declined that opportunity they didn't want to find out with a perjury statement was instead they wanted to bring him to right through the criminal case so maybe they could further subject the victim to cross examination in addition if you look at the notes that they're so heavily relying upon your honor my time is expire position is that section twenty four twenty three b is clearly a crime involving sexual abuse of a child if congress had wanted to use the phrase has as an element congress could have done that congress instead chose to use the phrase involving to twenty four twenty three b there's no actual sex as an element it's the travel with intent that is the crime and the court said when the defendant suggested that thirty two eighty three should not apply for the exact suggesting suggested here this involving language the court said quote defendants argument is illogical and clearly misinterprets the use of the term involved in section thirty two eighty three by its terms section thirty offered by the government as a result of the expert being i thought i thought in fact it wasn't that that was part of what you were complaining about especially i thought your assertion that the new film clip in the foreign figurines should have been admitted was all part of  evidence that they were saying showed this was psychic and this was psychological manipulation this was all part and parcel this was all of a piece of the grooming that was going on and they were made pushing that and you're bothered by figurines and the and quit from the nugent ski film as well as a bunch of other stuff relevant to showing how this fellow schneider was prepared to tell a twelve year old boy and welder older stick with me your life's going to be a rock well that i mean certainly that is one of the organs that they need and there was evidence of that at trial but wrong saying however is that specifically arguing a point about grooming and using the word i guess that was an argument that they made records my second point which is that judge sanchez in his post trial decision rights the government points to no ever it's however justifying the inference that zach braff would have refused to continue engaging in sexual who were going to have their highest grossing prost that you walk out on them and they said don't go you know if you stick with us we'll take you to see the sights in salt lake city o school in this place would take it whatever it is if that had been the ed and then they had gone and come back we would mortenson be an innocent trip even though they did sightseeing would it be a trip that was part of a kind of a quid pro quo stick with us in the broth will and you get this other good stuff