[aristeides]

Well, I'm not sure exactly what the "special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States" precisely entails either, but notice that that part of section 2243 requires the knowing commission of a sexual act, not just an attempt, or the crossing of a state line with the intention. At least as the story has been reported so far, we still have no evidence that Ritter actually engaged in such an act with a minor.

Also, I hadn't focused on the ages the statute mentions until now. Crossing the state line has to be with the intent to engage in a sexual act with someone less than 12 years old. So even the 14-year-old in Ritter's case does not qualify. And the other prong, where the sexual act has actually been committed, has to be for someone younger than 16, so that, in Ritter's case, only the 14-year-old comes into question, and it sounds as if Ritter's e-mail to her was too vague to be the basis of a criminal action.

[nicmarlo]

Well, Bonaparte, remember, is the one who posted that Code...we do not know what code(s) the Feds are looking at; and it you want to be technical, he didn't "actually" solicit a minor....although, I wouldn't let him off for that, he thought he was soliciting a minor, and believed he set up a rendevous with a minor. Even so, this is sick. I have two daughters the age he (thought) he was going after.....one 14 almost 15 and one just turned 17. I find this abominable (sp?)

[Fred Mertz]

Do you have any idea how the press got hold of this sealed Ritter case in the first place? Has that come out?

I've been out of the loop for a day and a half. Thanks.