Epstein Secrets

an Dershowitz, Esq. November 19, 2007 Page 14 interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement.") (emphasis added); Cleveland v. United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence ... that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").' Under these standards, the

(11h Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillman 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v.Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); gintosovvsisto, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1999); United. St

t be found to exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and must be the dominant motive of such interstate movement") (emphasis added)• Cleveland v, United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive.").2 Under these standards, there i

3 (1Is Cir. 2004); United States v. Miranda, 348 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir. 2003). United States v Tillmog, 195 F.3d 640 (1l d' Cir. 1999)• USA States v.Panfil 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 Ws Cir. 1999). United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999). Uni

T]he only factual issue in the case was whether paitioners dominant purpose in making the trip was to facilitate her practice of prostitution. . .); Cleveland I United States, 329 U.S. 14, 20 (1946) ("There was evidence .. . that the unlawful purpose was the dominant motive."). There is no basis for conc

ate or otherwise interact improperly with persons who turn out to be minors. A prosecution of Mr. Epstein would violate the teachings of Bailey and Panfil. As we believe we persuaded you at the June 26'h meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to