Epstein Secrets

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

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

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These firms met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compr

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

the supposedly independent auditors. The smoking gun was the relationship between energy giant Enron and the flagship professional services firm of Arthur Andersen. These rums met powerful sanctions: bankruptcy with possible jail terms for those high-level managers whose involvement crossed the line from compro

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