Epstein Secrets

enge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or enticesminors. United States' Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States'. Pcmfil, 338 F.3d 1° Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any cal may claim to h

uthern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting was extremely produ

enge to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United States' Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States' Panfil, 338 F.3d 1° indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls Haley Robson m

uthern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: TELEPHONE (alai 737-0400 FACSIMILE 1212)124384192 We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June

— communicate or otherwise interact improperly with persons who turn out to be minors. A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As we believe we persuaded you at the June 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — w

uthern District of Florida 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite-400 West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Messrs. Sloman, Menchel and Lourie and Ms. Villafafia: We write as counsel to Jeffrey Epstein to follow-up on our meeting on June 26, 2007. We thought the meeting was extremely produ

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cu. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of t

letter now accuses me of "manufacturing" charges of obstruction of justice, making obscene phone calls, and violating child privacy laws. When Mr. Lourie told you that those charges would "embarrass the Office," he meant that the Office was unwilling to bend the facts to satisfy Mr. Epstein's desired

said to act purposefully if 'he consciously desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct.' United States !Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980), quoting United Slates u United Slates Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 22, 445 (1978).7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted

26 EXHIBIT 43 EFTA00184603 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 26 Dear Ms. Villafafia and Mr. Lourie: LAW OFFICES Of GERALD B. LuttatiRT, P.C. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION 148 EAST 70'" STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B. LERCOURT Www1Glef

s 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(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts rather than just the intent to persuade or solicit

tember 24, 2007 Email from J. Lefkowitz to M. Villafana. 22. Ms. Villafana replied that she had “forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], Andy [Lourie], and Rolando [Garcia]. I don’t anticipate it going any further than that.” Jd. 23. Ms. Villafana stated that the agreement would be “placed in the