Epstein Secrets

(15 years) under the Sentencing Guidelines. I have reviewed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Epstein to the United States Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida, which concluded that the cited federal statutes are inapplicable to the allegations made against Mr. Epstein and therefore, as a matter

See also United States v. Root 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (11'h Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005)• United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8'h Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- EFTA00605410 Alan Dershowitz, Esq. November 19, 2007 Page 9 20 (9ib Cir

Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein"), who entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United State's Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") to resolve state and federal criminal investigations relating to his actions involving numerous young women. I am writing becau

ee also United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (11'h Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10°' Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8° Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- 20 (9°' Cir. 2004). There are approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit race

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 in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we

crime. See United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (j1 di Cir. 2002); United States' Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 9a9 (10th Cir. 2005); United Stalest. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States'. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

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 in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we

the crime. See United States. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 122742 (11th Cir. 2002); United States' Suns, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10* Cir. 2005); United States' Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8* Cir. 2006); United States d Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9* Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected voi for vagueness, o

o join the case, Dershowitz personally helped to negotiate the non-prosecution agreement (NPA) at issue in this case, which bars his prosecution in the Southern District of Florida as a "potential co-conspirator of Epstein." DE 280 at 4 (quoting NPA at 5). The Court has previously allowed Epstein to prospectively int

me. See United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States I Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 919 (10th Cir. 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

n Dcrshowitz, Esq. December 7,2007 Page 6 I have reviewed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Epstein to the United States Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida, which concluded that the cited federal statutes are inapplicable to the allegations made against Mr. Epstein and therefore, as a matter

ee also United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (I11° Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims. 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- 20 (9th Cir. 2004). There arc approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit case

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 in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we

es1 Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 0th Cir. dealing with a minor was sufficient to make out the crime. See United States Root, 296 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8Ih Or. 2006); United States I Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (0 Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, ove

higan for alleged- t mailing circulars in violation of the o.ne Mail Statute, and who had been arrested on the indictments at their resi- dences in the Southern District of Cali forma where proceedings for their re- moval were instituted before the United States Commissioner, brought suits in equity in the United St

) engaged in conduct that constitutes a substantial step towa commission of the crime. See United States Farner. 251 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir.2001); Helder, 452 F.3d at 755. Whether Defendant had the requisite culpability for the underlying offense can be addressed by inquiring whether Defendant inte

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 in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we

rime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 122742 (11"' Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10* Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8* Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9'h Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

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 in the Southern District of Florida in which there is at least one allegation of a violation of §2422(b). To the extent the facts could be discerned from the indictment, we

ime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States x Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,