Epstein Secrets

ROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00003302 EFTA00157684 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutors have pursued the allegations against Mr. Epstein is highly irregular and warrants full review by the Depar

ring the federal investigation; a letter from former CEOS attorney Stephanie Thacker that responds to CEOS's assessment of its limited review of Mr. E stein's case; and a point-by- point rebuttal to First Assistant United States Attorney recent letter which we believe contains factual inaccuracies typic

here, those problems unquestionably present multi jurisdictional obstacles that States and localities cannot confront effectively on their own. Mr. Epstcin's conduct was purely local in nature, and the State of Florida and Palm Beach County are effectively prosecuting and punishing that conduct. Althou

LP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutor

LP SUMMARY OF MISCONDUCT ISSUES IN THE MATTER OF JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN The manner in which federal prosecutors

dent assessment of whether federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein is both nertcruy and warranted in view of the le

here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court prohibited the criminalization of travel under identical circumstances over a half century ago. Sce, Mortenson v. United Stalo, 322 U.S. 369,374 (1944) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct must "exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey and

orrespondence from the United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in det

igation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will highlight salient points responsive to the CEOS letter. In particular, I write from a background well

by Ms. , testified in her federal sworn interview that Ms. told her to lie to Epstein. agg Tr. at 8 ("she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want an underage girls') (emphasis added). Ms. testimon strongly suggests that Ms. lied to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms. als

Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will hi

here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court prohibited the criminalization of travel under identical circumstances over a half century ago. Sis, Mortenson v. United States 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct must "exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey an

orrespondence from the United States Department of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section ("CEOS") regarding the federal investigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in det

igation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will highlight salient points responsive to the CEOS letter. In particular, I write from a background well

Florida ("USAO"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, rather, will hi

by Ms. , testified in her federal sworn interview that Ms. told her to lie to Epstein. agc Tr. at 8 ("she just said make sure you're 18 because Jeffrey doesn't want an underage girls') (emphasis added). Ms. testimon strongly suggests that Ms. lied to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms. als

here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court prohibited the criminalization of travel under identical circumstances over a half century ago. Sis, Mortenson v. United States 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct must "exist before the conclusion of the interstate journey an