Epstein Secrets

ed 'Obscenity and Violence,' after the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the intemet. So United Sates v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11) Cir. 2005) (citing H.R. Rep. No. 104-458, at 193 (1996) (Conf.Rep.)). See also K. Seto, Note: How Should Legislation Deal

SILVERSTEIN EOWARO 5. NATHAN PASQUALE J. RUFOLO JOHN P. INGLESINO LINDA A. ELFENBEIN TERRY L. TRANTINA JOHN P. WYCISKALA ALAIN WOMAN LISA 0. TAYLOR MARK W. RUFOLO STEVEN D. GORELICK Alan Dershowitz, Esq. Hari 76 UVINGSTON AVENUE ROSELAND, NEW JERSEY 07060 November 19, 2007 LING LAU MELIS

ppeal dismissed due to waiver of right to appeal. 2422(b) Not Consummated Sting 51 EFTA00224185 FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE- U.S. I Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2005) Internet Internet chat room; defendant's screen name was "Obesseddad11"; informed undercover agent that he was

be concurrent or alternative sentence of 204 months - court affirmed sentence. 2422(b); 21 USC 841 (marijuana possession ) No Information US.' Taylor, 6 Fed. Appx. 174 (41° Cir. 2001) Slip Copy Not for Publication No Information No information available. Indictment not accessible; no media

y Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the Internet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104-458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States ' Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cyber

ge? Similarly, Jane Doe No. 3 appears on a July 16, 2001, flight from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Teterboro, New Jersey, along with Epstein, Maxwell and Emmy Tayler. Yet there is no earlier flight that would have landed Jane Doe No. 3 in New Mexico. According to the logs, the next flight is from Palm Beach to t

onsummated Sting 49 EFTA01729533 : COultir -: . ‘• CASES-; - 1 . • • -. - :,FACILITY i:PACtSICOMNIT:ThlICAPON- 'CHAR0g t• U.S. v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (1 l'h Cir. Internet Internet chat room; defendant's screen name was "Obesseddadl I"; informed 2422(b) Sting 2005) undercover

concurrent or alternative sentence of 204 months - court affirmed sentence. 2422(b); 21 USC 841 (marijuana possession ) No Information U.S. v. Taylor, 6 Fed. Appx. 174 (4'h Cir. 2001) . Slip Copy Not for Publication No Information No information. Appealed 71. month sentence. Affirmed. 24

due to waiver of right to appeal. 2422(b) Not Consummated Sting 49 EFTA00079462 COURT CASES FACILITy FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. v. Searcy. Internet Internet chat room; defendant's screen 2422(14 418 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. Sting name was "Obesseddadl I"; informed undercover agent th

concurrent or alternative sentence of 204 months - court affirmed sentence. 2422(b); 21 USC 841 (marijuana possession ) No Information U.S. v. Taylor, 6 Fed. Appx. 174 (4th Cir. 2001) Slip Copy Not for Publication No Information No information. Appealed 71 month sentence. Affirmed. 2422(b

ICO One defendant sentenced to 40 yrs; other to 30 yrs. Affirmed. 53 EFTA00226343 COURT dale ' FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE"-•r. US I Searcy, Inter . et Internet chat room; defendant's screen 2422(b) 418 F.3d 1193 (11th Cir. 2005) Sting name was "Obesseddad11"; informed undercover

concurrent or alternative sentence of 204 months - court affirmed sentence. 2422(b); 21 USC 841 (marijuana possession ) No Information U.S. I Taylor, 6 Fed. Appx. 174 (4th Cir. 2001) Slip Copy Not for Publication No Information No information available. Indictment not accessible; no media

ary Committee held a hearing regarding child endangerment via the Internet. See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 104.458, at 193 (1996), quoted in United States' Searcy, 418 I3d 1193, 1197 (11ih Cir. 2005); see also K. Seto, "Note: How Should Legislation Deal with Children and the Victims and Perpetrators of Cybers

under 18 years of agc when transported is not part of the proof required of the goverrunent in order to sustain a conviction under §2423. 3) U.S.' Taylor, 239 13d 994 (9'" Cir. 2001). Government does not have to prove U.S. Hamilton, 456 2d 171 (3d Cir. 1972). defendant's knowledge victim was and i