Epstein Secrets

Int:our, P.G I proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or ) 'to avoid araction reporting requirement under State orf ederal law"'. United States Puche, 350 3d 1137 (11" Cir. 2003);' see also United States I Arditti, 955'.2d 331 (5° Cir.), reh'g denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. denie

m not at liberty to discuss this matter with you. Moreover, it is nor the practice of this Office to discuss internal Department of Justice policies Aith non-Justice Department persormel. If Mr. Riley believes he has cause to move to quash the subpoena, or if Mr. Epstein does for that matter, counsel for the respective par

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

t them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (1 3'Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v Puche, 350 F.3d t 137, 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the

prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agree

age 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) 'to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law"'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11 Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. d

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

Page 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' orAc) `to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". United States'. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States" Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. de

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

age 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) `to avoid a trenchetion reporting requirement under State or Federal law"'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh's denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert.

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

Page 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) `to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5'h Cir.), reh'g denied, cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert.

ney laundering. That was surely not what Congress intended, how the courts have interpreted the language of the statute, or even how it is viewed by the Department of Justice. 18 U.S.C. § 1960 - Prohibition of Unlicensed Money Transmitting Business Does Not Apply to Mr. Epstein's Alleged Misconduct Likewise, a prosecuti

acsimile: www.kirkland.com Dir. Fax: June 19, 2008 John Roth, Esq. Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General Office of the Deputy Attorney General United States Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 4115 Washington, D.C. 20530 Dear Mr. Roth: I again want to thank you for this opportunity to explain why we be

e prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised his rights to appeal to the Department of Justice with the full consent and knowledge of the USAO, he has not breached the Agreement. The re-commencing of the Grand Jury is in violation of the Agreem

et them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11" Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (11™ Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] . . . that the d