Epstein Secrets

17, 2007 ToFrom R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman. First Assistant United States Attorney W , Chief, Criminal Division , MAUSA, Northern Region Chief, Northern Region 1. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment charging Jeffrey Epstein, M, a

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer , F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse

il 30, 2007 ToFrom R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman. First Assistant United States Attorney M a, Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region 1. Introduction This memorandum se sairoval for the attached indictment charging Jeffrey Epstein, a/k/a

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer , F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse

7) (2nd Revision 2/19/08)' To From R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment char in Jeffrey Epstein, Min

Hersh specifically mentions "sexual activity with a minor," knowledge of age is not required, as discussed above. 17 EFTA00234533 United States Hoschouer, F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse

r Date May 1, 2007 To R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman, First Assistant United States Attorney Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction From a(' This memorandum seeks approval for the attached indictment charm Jeffrey Epste

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer, F.3d,_, 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addres

2/19/08) a ToFrom R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman, First Assistant United States Attorney M, Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region Chief, Northern Region I. Introduction This memorandum seeks a royal for the attached indictment charging Jeffrey Epstein, a/k/

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer , F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse

ed 9/13/07) ToFrom R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman, First Assistant United States Attorney M, Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region Chief, Northern Region May 1, 2007 I. Introduction This memorandum seeks a royal for the attached indictment charging Jeffrey Ep

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer , F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse

23, 2007 ToFrom R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney Jeff Sloman. First Assistant United States Attorney M, I Chief, Criminal Division MAUSA, Northern Region , Chief, Northern Region 1. Introduction This memorandum seeks a royal for the attached indictment charging Jeffrey Epstein, a/k

e travel. In other words, the Government must show that the Defendant's criminal purpose was not merely incidental to the travel. United States v. Hoschouer , F.3d 2007 WL 979931, *1 (11th Cir. Apr. 3, 2007). The decision of the Eleventh Circuit was consistent with every other circuit that has addresse