Epstein Secrets

ch that Federal jurisdiction is necessary. See Tab 11, November 9, 2007 Letter from Justice Department Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to the House Committee on the Judiciary, p. 8-9. 3 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001672 EFTA00209851 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Summon of the Law We ha

l court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

ch that Federal jurisdiction is necessary. See Tab 11, November 9, 2007 Letter from Justice Department Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to the House Committee on the Judiciary, p. 8-9. 3 EFTA00210076 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Summary of the Law We have reviewed every reported case un

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei

ch that Federal jurisdiction - is necessary. See Tab 11, November 9, 2007 Letter from Justice Department Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to the House Committee on the Judiciary, p. 8-9. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012144 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Summary of the Law We have revie

l court decisions watering down the “for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

ch that Federal jurisdiction is necessary. See Tab 11, November 9, 2007 Letter from Justice Department Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski to the House Committee on the Judiciary, p. 8-9. 3 EFTA00013813 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Summary of the Law We have reviewed ev

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei