Epstein Secrets

rwhelmingly confirm the limits to prosecution we have previously identified.2 I For several months, we have also been consulting on this matter with Stephanie Thacker, former Principal Deputy Chief, Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker supports our position without reservatio

consulting on this matter with Stephanie Thacker, former Principal Deputy Chief, Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statues should be brought to bear. Ms. Thacker would als

hancement of his sentence for crime of violence. Affirmed. 52 EFTA00224186 COURT CASES FACILITY .“. FAMPIOCOMMUNICAi'ION CHARGE a U.S. v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) Internet Internet chat rooms "family love" & "Rent F Vry Yng"; communicated with same agent who pretended to be

bmissions include: a summary of the irregularities and misconduct that occurred during the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker that responds to CEOS's assessment of its limited review of Mr. E stein's case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Atto

nt can be found guilty of that offense only if...the defendant believed that such individual was less than (18) years of age..."); United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (I I1° Cir. 2004) (§ 2422(b) requires that the defendant knowingly target a minor). Importantly, then, all the elements must be

der to sustain a conviction. In particular, § 2422(b) requires that the defendant specifically intended to target a minor. ke,ligh, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]o prove an attempt the government must first prove that [defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific

e in the West Palm Beach Division of the Southern District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts