Epstein Secrets

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen v. United States , 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo v. United States , 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of

, 2005, Defendants EPSTEIN and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfstream aircraft owned by Defendant HYPERION AIR, INC. #. On or about May 6, 2005, Defendants EPSTEIN, and traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Gulfs

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

esult 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 Hyperion. As I believe Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez told you, JEGE and Hyperion are

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo I. United States, 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of ten

ned via grand jury subpoenas. CONCLUSION Based on tiling recommend that the Office approve the attached indictment charging Epstein, , JEGE, and Hyperion. I also recommend that the Office refuse a pre-indictment interview to Epstein or his counsel and that no information about the status of the case

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen v. United States , 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo v. United States , 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of

rand jury subpoenas. CONCLUSION Based on the fore oin , I recommend that the Office approve the attached indictment charging Epstein, , JEGE, and Hyperion. I also recommend that the Office refuse a pre-indictment interview to Epstein or his counsel and that no information about the status of the case b