Epstein Secrets

, 311 I. 3d 557, 161-63 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S.' Meek, 366 3d 705, 720- 22 (9" Cir. 2004); U.S. Panti I, 338 3d 1299, 1300-01 (I I" Cir. 2003); U.S. Bailey, 228 F. 3d 637, 639 (6" Cir. 2000). Case No. 08-80736-C V-MARRA P-011949 EFTA00226737 eattWithentiali th umse Ct. S.An r•&it EIVVY,_ LOHen 1

- 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

00226814 To be sure, Blair had been a bad egg whose misbehaviors were more flagrant than those of his contemporaries. But at least since publisher Arthur Sulzberger had appointed Raines as managing editor in 2001,a strong set of explicit and implicit signals had been sent to the Times staff. Reporters were told

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

00176572 To be sure, Blair had been a bad egg whose misbehaviors were more flagrant than those of his contemporaries. But at least since publisher Arthur Sulzberger had appointed Raines as managing editor in 2001,a strong set of explicit and implicit signals had been sent to the Times staff. Reporters were told

e to the statute: "The statute only applies to those who `knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to

A00284239 To be sure, Blair had been a bad egg whose misbehaviors were more flagrant than those of his contemporaries. But at lent since publisher Arthur Sulzberger had appointed Raines as managing editor in 2001,a strong set of explicit and implicit signals had been sent to the Times staff. Reporters were told