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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

y precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transaction(s) unless three substantive prerequisites are satisfied: first, the matter must involve a substantial federal interest; second, th

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

iscretion by appropriate officers of the Department of Justice in determining whether to bring a federal prosecution based on substantially the same act(s) or transactions involved in a prior state or federal proceeding." The purpose of the policy "is to vindicate substantial federal interests through