Epstein Secrets

th suppliers and consumers of commercial sex acts. It would be helpful for us to get as many cases addressing that issue as possible, especially in the Second Circuit but honestly nationwide, for cases charged during the time period from when the statute was passed initially in 2000 through when it was amended. T

rsion of USC 1591. As we discussed in your office, the key case actually analyzing the statute is U.S. v. Jungers, while the other cases either cite Jungers directly or simply assume that 1591 applies to purchasers without analyzing the law. Additionally, there is one case, Fierro v. Taylor, from SDNY i

umers were prosecuted under the pre-2015 version of USC 1591. As we discussed in your office, the key case actually analyzing the statute is U.S. v. Jungers, while the other cases either cite Jungers directly or simply assume that 1591 applies to purchasers without analyzing the law. Additionally, there

t 1591 does not apply to consumers. However, the judge relied on and directly cited the statutory interpretation completed by the district courts in Jungers and Bonestroo, both of which were overturned by the 8th Circuit United States v. Jungers. Thus, it is doubtful that Fierro would be seen as persuas

ed provides the motive for him do so and is another significant factor in assessing the risk of flight. See United States v. Jackson, 823 F.2d 4, 7 (2d Cir. 1987). So too is the strength of the evidence, detailed above and in the Government's Detention Memo. Indeed, that evidence, already robust less th

ict courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of which were explicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit decision in Jungers, 702 F.3d 10

n to dozens of victims who were abused in Florida. 2 While beyond the scope of a bail hearing, as discussed further below, it is well-established in the Second Circuit that absent an express provision to the contrary in the agreement, one District is not bound by the terms of an agreement entered into between a def

elaborately replicate a detention facility without the confidence of security such a facility instills."' United States v. Orena, 986 F.2d 628, 632 (2d Cir. 1993) (quoting United States v. Gotti, 776 F. Supp. 666, 672 (E.D.N.Y. 1991) (rejecting private jail proposal)); see also Valerio, 9 F. Supp. 3d at

ict courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of which were explicitly overruled by the Eighth Circuit decision in Jungers, 702 F.3d 10