Epstein Secrets

Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, both counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, that as a result of a telephone conversation had amongst you, Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez, you are now seeking documents reflecting: 1. Ownership of JEGE and Hyperion; 2. Assets of JEGE and Hyperion; and 3. Employees of JEGE and Hyperio

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 such elasticity in federal criminal stat

NEY DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Lilly Ann Sanchez Fowler White Burnett, PA 1395 Stickel! Ave, le Floor Miami, FL 33131 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Ms. Sanchez: 99N£ !Street USK FL 13112 003)961.9100 - Tetteatle O03)3366444 - FaesteSk December 19, 2007 I write to follow up on the December le meeting be

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen'. United States 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to U

an “mere solicitation;” it must be more than an offer or the providing of an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (1* Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11™ Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent wit

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 such elasticity in federal criminal sta

"mere solicitation;" it must be more than an offer or the providing of an opportunity to engage in prohibited conduct. See, e.g,. United States v. Sanchez-Berrios, 424 F.3d 65, 76-77 (ls' Cir. 2005); United States v. Brown, 43 F.3d 618, 625 (11th Cir. 1995). The government cannot fairly, or consistent

r 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 such elasticity in federal criminal st