Epstein Secrets

behalf of such person) during the very• communication that constitutes the required basis for federal jurisdiction. EFTA00079412 LAW OF/PICCO OP GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C. FCre₹ o Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 5 To our knowledge, the c

T TB" STREET NEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B LEFCOURT SHERYL E. REICH riBlialloROWEWN:orn RENATO C.

ding of this statutory language would raise constitutional problems of fair warning, vagueness and lenity. EFTA00079411 LAW o•ICCS or GERALD 13. LEVCOURT. PC Chiefo the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 4 We are, of course, mindf

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (sr Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11`" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA00079414 U.S. v. Jackson. 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state con

LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. • PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I AS EAST 7S"

., U.S. I Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. ~ Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 `11 Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336 9 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy char

ld" neighbor; arrested in hotel where supposed to meet. • Not Consummated Showed up for meeting Sting Conviction affirmed. 87 EFTA01729571 I LEFCOURT'S LIST EFTA01729572

U.S. v. Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (76 Cir. 2006) (2423(b) Conspiracy); U.S. v. Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. v. Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11" Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); EFTA01729485 U.S. v. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33639 (D. Neb. 2007) (state cons

nt purposes. And §2422(a), unlike subsection (b), carries no mandatory minimum sentence, let alone ten years. EFTA00284189 ♦— ornocs or GERALD a LEFCOURT, PC United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 6, 2007 Page 16 first prove that Murrell, using the internet, acted with a

e simply by employing an intennediary to carry out his intended objective. Id. at 1287. Fact patterns similar to Murrell's exist in United States v Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (11t Cir. 2004); United States v. Houston, 177 Fed. Appx. 57 (11" Cir. 2006); United States v. Searcy, 418 F.3d 1193 (116 Cir. 2005