Epstein Secrets

aimen1 and *pm to tomply wkihztote. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA VinTED STATER ATTOMEY A. MARE VII1APA A ASSISTANT VS. ATTORNEY Dáie.1 ril - Os& Dw.* GERALD LEPCOURT,ESO. COUNSEL TO MPFREY MIEN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ. ESQ. ATTORNEY POR WEM ETSTEN Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011814 EFTA00192860 By signing this

MARIE VTLLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY OERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANC

with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: By: Dated: 77P/4" Dated: Dated: A. MARIE VTLLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY OERALD LEFCOURT, ESQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCHEZ, ESQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-01 1810 EFTA001

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen', Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with who

as counsel to the above noted entities to respond to the subpoenas dated April 24, 2007, served, respectively, on those entities. I understand from Gerald B. Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, both counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, that as a result of a telephone conversation had amongst you, Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez,

d from Gerald B. Lefcourt and Lilly Ann Sanchez, both counsel to Jeffrey Epstein, that as a result of a telephone conversation had amongst you, Mr. Lefcourt and Ms. Sanchez, you are now seeking documents reflecting: 1. Ownership of JEGE and Hyperion; 2. Assets of JEGE and Hyperion; and 3. Employees of

l court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, BSQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANC

d agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: Dated: By: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, BSQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCM3Z, BSQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00076091 Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document

with relatively little disruption, continue to operate their highly lucrative business from any number of overseas locations"); • United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court order of pretrial release of defendant, a resident and citizen of Denmark-from where def

d agrees to comply with them. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTORNEY Dated: Dated: Dated: By: A. MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, BSQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANCM3Z, BSQ. ATTORNEY FOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN Page 7 of 7 EFTA00095894 Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document

MARIE VILLAFARA ASSISTANT U.S. ATTORNEY GERALD LEFCOURT, BSQ. COUNSEL TO JEFFREY EPSTEIN LILLY ANN SANC

with relatively little disruption, continue to operate their highly lucrative business from any number of overseas locations"); • United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court order of pretrial release of defendant, a resident and citizen of Denmark-from where def

tant prosecutor Dahlia Weiss and thereby influence the outcome of the State prosecution, that assertion is frivolous. Mr. Goldberger was retained by Gerald Lefcourt after Mr. Epstein already had been indicted by the Grand Jury. Mr. Lefcourt had never heard the name Dahlia Weiss when he hired Mr. Goldberger, and

tion, that assertion is frivolous. Mr. Goldberger was retained by Gerald Lefcourt after Mr. Epstein already had been indicted by the Grand Jury. Mr. Lefcourt had never heard the name Dahlia Weiss when he hired Mr. Goldberger, and had no idea that Mr. Goldberger's law partner was married to a sex-crimes p

e of § 2423 Cases, ixhibit 30, and make this case more like Hansen Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), and Mortensen United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). In Hansen, the Supreme Court rejected charges against a woman traveling back to her home in the United States to "continue her irregular and improper conduct

See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is res

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei

l court decisions watering down the “for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

3, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is reso