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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (111b Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to criminalize persuasion and the attempt to persuade, not the performance of

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through

s not involved, two other circuits have examined the issue and determined travel is not necessary to sustain such a conviction. In United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639-40 (6th Cir. 2000), the Sixth Circuit affirmed a conviction under Section 2422(b) where the defendant sent e-mails proposing ora

tify that Plaintiff was paid by others for similar sexual acts she claims Mr. Epstein forced upon her or that she willingly participated in certain act(s) that would negate or lessen her damages. This goes directly to Plaintiff's damage claim. 7. Likewise, subpoenas must be issued to third-party tre

sly met with and , Epstein s assistants in New York and in Florida. Estes stated they travel with Epstein everywhere he goes. I interviewed of Bailey stated she ust 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 in

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through