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

le. Motion to exclude pre-Miranda statements and evidence from bag denied. See U.S. I Vasquez, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2339 (D. Me. 2003) infra N.D.N.Y. U.S. I Johnson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) Internet Internet chat room; 37 yr-old male met 13 yr-old; 16 yr-old and one other und

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

verwhelmingly confirm the limits to prosecution we have previously identified.2 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

3) No Information No information available. Motion to exclude pre-Miranda statements and evidence from bag denied. 2422(b) No Information r N.D.N.Y. U.S. v. Johnson, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52 (N.D.N.Y. 2005) No information available. Affirmed at 446 F.3d 272 (2d Cir. 2006) supra. In The Matt

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

of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO").' I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will highlight salient points responsive