Epstein Secrets

ory five-year period of incarceration. The current ten-year mandatory minimum was instituted in 2006. MIA_CEOS_00077 EFTA00191444 LAW °VICES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT. P.C. Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. Matthew Menchel, Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Marie Villafafia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern Dis

itional step, even before any sexual activity and regardless of whether one ever takes place. MIA_CE0S_00092 EFTA00191459 LAW OIACCS OF ERALD a LEFCOURT. PC. Jeffrey Sloman, Esq. Matthew Menchel, Esq. Andrew Lourie, Esq. A. Marie Villafaiia, Esq. The United States Attorney's Office Southern Dist

0) (excerpts attached as Exhibit 29) Later, Dershowitz would write to tell the Justice Department that "Epstein never targeted minors." Letter from Gerald Lefcourt & Alan Dershowitz, July 6, 2007 to U.S. Atty.'s Office for the S.D. Fla (attached as Exhibit 30). Now, nearly a decade later, there should be no doubt

or, J. dissenting). United States' Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

48 EAST 78Th NEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 GERALD B. LEFCOURT [email protected] SHERYL E. REICH NIcle

r, J. dissenting). United States'. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c

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

, J. dissenting). United States v. Ballinger, 395 F.3d 1218 (11th Cir. 2005), illustrates the difficulty of the task. In that case, the deeply split en banc Court considered whether and to what extent the Commerce Clause authority included the power to punish a church arsonist who had traveled in interstate c