Epstein Secrets

22 (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. States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); Unit

(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

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). United States v. Roias, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (111° Cir. 2005

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

I lb Cir. 2003); United States'. 7illmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11* Cir. 1999); United States1 &mill, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11* Cir. 2003); United Stalest. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Burgess, 175 F.3d j261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11* Cir. 2005);

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 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to

(11th Cir. 2003); United States I Tillman, 195 F.3 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States , Pali!, supra, 338 F. d 1299 (11'h Cir. 2003); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3d 261 (116 Cir. 1999); United States' Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); Un

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 26th meeting, Mr. Epstein never targeted minors. On the contrary, what he did — at worst — was akin to

., -.7 • etx : , . y • 75Pei.-7 y':5:4:::•*. : 4,-,4' ?*-LY- " WE; t ;41 • , tt Z,. , - ...r. .•ii.. -.7 .'.?4r.").7 1. e U.S. 1,. Garrett, Internet Internet chat room as part of police 2422(b); 2252(a)(2); 190 F.3d 1220 (11'h Cir. 1999) Sting investigation of child porn; defendan

d at meeting place. Court vacated & remanded because downward departure not warranted.. 2422(6) Not Consummated Showed up at meeting to U.S. v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11'h Cir. 2003) Interne( Internet chat room communications with "13 yr-old"; sexually explicit; told her he would give her powe

* Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillmon, 195 F.3d 640 (I I* Cir. 1999); United States v. Poe!, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11* Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (II* Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I I° Cir. 2005

ngly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 1° Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any call may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though M

Cir. 2003); United States v. Tillmon, 195 F.3d 640 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Panfll, supra, 338 F.3d 1299 (11° Cir. 2003); United States it Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Burgess,175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005);

ingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice, minors. United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States v. Panfil, 338 F.3d 10 Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though

ce. Affirmed. 2422(b); 2241(c); 2252 No Information 61 EFTA00226335 COURT. : C ' •. ... . FACILITY.. :FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. I Garrett, Internet Internet chat room as part of police 2422(b); 2252(a)(2); 190 F.3d 1220 (11'" Cir. 1999) Sting investigation of child porn; defendan

at meeting place. Court vacated & remanded because downward departure not warranted. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up at meeting Sting U.S. I Panfil, 338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003) Internet Internet chat room communications with "13 yr-old"; sexually explicit; told her he would give her powe

ates Pang supra, 338 3d at 1300-01 (11th Cir. 2003)." " There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases that include a prosecution under Garrett, 190 3d 1220 (116 Cir. §2424(b), most of which involve the prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g., United States !Morton, 364 I3d 1300 (I l ° Cij. 20

gly' persuade or entice, or attempt If to persuade or entice, minors. United States Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (611' Cir. 2000). See United States' Panfil, 338 I3d 1D Indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epstein. Though Ms