Epstein Secrets

LEFCOURT SHERYL E. REICH RENATO C. STABILE FAITH A. FRIEDMAN BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 First Assistant United States Attorney ., Chief, Criminal Division e United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida puty Chief, Northern Region Assistant United States Attorney The United States tt

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Mune!, 368 17.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

eral charges that limited Epstein's sentencing exposure . . . " See Tab 1, May 19, 2008 Letter from J. . In fact, by a email dated August 3, 2007, Criminal Division Chief Matthew Menchel advised the defense that the federal government required a minimum term of two years of incarceration. See Tab 40, August 3,

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

BY FEDERAL EXPRESS TELEPHONE FACSIMILE July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Reg

th the purported 13 year old girl, but with an undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts between Murrell and the agent occurred in internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F Vry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl'

flriolmsnalccostlawcom BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4'h Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Reg

.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

IM•cimweelcoutlaw.com BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Sloman, Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Menchel, Esq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4'h Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Lourie, Deputy Chief, Northern Reg

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States ' Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

RPORATION 140 EAST 7STN STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021 July 6, 2007 Jeffrey Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Fsq., Chief, Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Andrew Londe, Deputy Chief, Northern Regi

61 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that tiling operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 y

SHERYL C. REICH RENATO C. STABILE FAITH A. FRIEDMAN BY FEDERAL EXPRESS July 6, 2007 Esq., First Assistant United States Attorney Esq., Chief, Criminal Division tates Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4u' Street Miami, Florida 33132 De uty Chief, Northern Region Assistant United State

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11ih Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

AND DELIVERY Honorable Sigal P. Mandelker Deputy Assistant Attorney General Andrew G. Oosterbaan Chief, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice 1400 New York Avenue, 6th Floor Washington, DC 20530 Dear Ms. Mandelker and Mr. Oosterbaan: Facsimile: (213

in order to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a finor to engage in a proscribed sexual act—rather than the sexual act itself. See United States Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The underlying criminal conduct Congress expressly proscribed in passing § 2422(b) is the persuasion, induc

ce, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.’ United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

e statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts r

our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.” (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considered

ur review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have not looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to conduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch." (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas relevant to the inquiry were not considere

rder to sustain a conviction. In particular, § 2422(b) requires that the defendant specifically intended to target a minor. age, a, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]o prove an attempt the government must first prove that [defendant], using the intemet, acted with a specific