Epstein Secrets

vision The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 4th Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear• Mr. Menthe': July 25, 2007 Jeffiry Epstein TELEPHONE la 1E)7370400 m ailman We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) could or sho

ting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's ease.' Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the

.S.C. §2422(b) could or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, even assuming the specific conduct that

beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's ease.' Enclosed is data that strongly supports

d. 2422(6); 2423; 1956 No Information ***Conspiracy/ Pimps 74 EFTA00079487 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE N.D. Ohio Chilleme v. U.S.. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25920 (N.D. Ohio 2006) Dismissed by 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38800 Internet Defendant believed he was communicatin

ivision The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 41' Street Miami, Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Menchel: July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein TELEPHONE '212)737-0400 FACSIMILE 12i P) 9/313-SI92 We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C.

ting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case.t Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the

Florida 33132 Dear Mr. Menchel: July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein TELEPHONE '212)737-0400 FACSIMILE 12i

beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case.t Enclosed is data that strongly supports

ial denied. No Information ***Conspiracy/ Pimps 77 EFTA00224211 COURT aCAS -. .. . lit FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE N.D. Ohio Chilleme I U.S.. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25920 (N.D. Ohio 2006) Dismissed by 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38800 Internet Defendant believed he was communicating

RENA FAITH BY HAND of of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern Distri of Florida tams, on a 3132 July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein •ELE.T., FACSIMILE Dear Mr. We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) could or should b

ting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case! Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the s

istri of Florida tams, on a 3132 July 25, 2007 Jeffrey Epstein •ELE.T., FACSIMILE Dear Mr. We have pr

beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case! Enclosed is data that strongly supports

FTA01729558 COURT ' - ‘.,-: ' CAS ,7,-...k.. „ .1y- " • .., • _%.-L,..,--- • :.FAOIL .2 •MO A, :.1trCFStc 1.4,11,O4 • , "..; N.D. Ohio Chilleme v. U.S.. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25920 (N.D. Ohio 2006) Dismissed by 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38800 Internet Defendant believed he was communicatin