Epstein Secrets

nder state law. Confining the statute's reach to such situations is precisely what eliminates what would otherwise be First Amendment problems. See Bailey 228 F.3d at 639 ("Defendant simply does not EFTA00221341 12/07/07 FRI 15:38 FAX 1 K I RKLAND&ELLI S LLP o1s Alan Dershowitz, Esq. December 7,

ny sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). See also United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (02' Cu. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of

sions will not be viewed as a breach of the Agreement. We, like you, are eager to achieve finality in this matter. Kenneth W. Starr cc: Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Chicago QT1 Hong Kong London Munith New Ycst Sr Francesco Wash

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 rather than just the intent to persuade or solic

er 27, 2007 Email from J. to J. Lefkowitz. 42. The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, requesting a meeting with her to discuss the impropriety of the USAO's encouraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (02' Cu. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of t

costa's letter to Judge Edward B. Davis dated October 25, 2007; Jay l,cfkowitz's letter to dated November 8, 2007; Judge Kenneth Starr's letter to Alice Fisher dated November 28, 2007; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated November 29, 2007; and R. Alexander Acosta's letter to Jay Letkowitz d

s.... This legislation will help for all of those reasons."). The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by c

r of grounds, including the provision for compensation of Epstein's victims. Ex. K, Nov. 28, 2007 Ltr. from Kenneth W. Starr to Assistant Att'y Gen. Alice S. Fisher. The Government cannot be faulted for properly recognizing that the NPA might be set aside by the efforts of Epstein's attorneys at the DOJ, or tha

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (1 I th Cir. 2004). See also United States'. 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

sions will not be viewed as a breach of the Agreement. We, like you, are eager to achieve finality in this matter. Kenneth W. Starr cc: Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Chicago Hong Kong London Munich Now York San Francisco Washingto

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

he notification letter until after we are able to discuss this matter with Assistant Attorney General Fisher. Kenneth W. Starr JaillAtz Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General , First Assistant U.S. Attorney fL 003 EFTA01718525 12/06/07 'THU 15:25 FAX UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHE

s.... This legislation will help for all of those reasons."). The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by c

r of grounds, including the provision for compensation of Epstein's victims. Ex. K, Nov. 28, 2007 Ltr. from Kenneth W. Starr to Assistant Att'y Gen. Alice S. Fisher. The Government cannot be faulted for properly recognizing that the NPA might be set aside by the efforts of Epstein's attorneys at the DOJ, or tha

York and in Florida. Estes stated they travel with Epstein everywhere he goes. I interviewed Zara Bailey of 35 Riverside Jersey City, New Jersey. Bailey stated she just arrived from Scotland and has worked with Zeff for only one month. She stated she has never met Epstein and has not seen him. The i

ederal case should not be brought. Mr. would not be abusing his prosecutorial discretion should he authorize federal prosecution of Mr. E cc: AAG Alice S. Fisher DAAG Sigal P. Mandelker U.S. Attorney Si 5 Oosterbaan RFP MIA 000365 EFTA00184594 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-40 Entered on FLED Doc

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

er 27, 2007 Email from J. Sloman to J. Lefkowitz. The morning of November 28, attorneys for Mr. Epstein faxed a letter to Assistant Attorney General Alice Fisher, requesting a meeting with her to discuss the impropriety of the USAO’s encouraging civil lawsuits against Mr. Epstein under the guise of the terms o