Epstein Secrets

(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

d 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); United States v. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the defe

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

299 (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); United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United Stalest Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (116 Cir. 2004), i

knowingly' persuade or entice, or attempt to persuade or entice minors. United States' Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 639 (6th Cir. 2000). See United States' Panfil, 338 F.3d 1° indeed, this last problem is best illustrated by any calls Haley Robson may claim to have made to solicit persons to massage Mr. Epste

338 F. 1299 (11* Cir. 2 3); United States Garrett, 190 F.3 1220 (11* Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is

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

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); United States' Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (I Cir. 2004)

meeting place. Court vacated & remanded because downward departure not warranted.. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up at meeting Sting U.S. v. 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

months. Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated & remanded because of Booker error. 2422(b) Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting U.S. v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) Unpublished Internet No specific information available but implication is that this was internet communica

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

nsummated Showed up for meeting Stint, Sentenced to 78 months. Conviction affirmed; sentence vacated & remanded because of Booker error. U.S. v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (1 1th Cir. 2005) Unpublished Internet No specific information available but implication is that this was intemet communica

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

299 (11th Cir. 20 3); United States 1 Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States! Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1949); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 05); United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11'h Cir. 200 ). United States I Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004),

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

(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); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 2002). United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004)

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

9 (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); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004)

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

5,000 fine, $86 restitution & $300 special assessment. Affirmed. 57 EFTA00226339 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION. CIIARGE.S U.S. I Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005) Unpublished Internet No specific information available but implication is that this was internet communica