Epstein Secrets

e statutory provision," not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the "effect" of the secretive transportation, but also that "petitioner knew th

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

ving one of these effects was a design (i.e. purpose) of the transportation" of currency. Cuellar v. United States, supra, 553 U.S., Slip op. At I (Alito, J. concurring). Similarly, it is not enough that one effect of a communication scheduling a visit between Mr. Epstein and a minor was that there mi

approval) promised to close the money-laundering investigation "if the sex offense case is resolved." See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from I. to G. Lefcourt ("In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been,

ive statutory provision,” not by outside objectives, such as those facilitating successful prosecution. See Cuellar, supra, Slip op. at 7. As Justice Alito stated in his concurring opinion, the government must prove not just the “effect” of the secretive transportation, but also that “petitioner knew tha

) promised to close the money-laundering investigation “if the sex offense case is resolved.” See Tab 23, August 16, 2007 Letter from M. Villafana to G. Lefcourt (“In other words, if the sex offense case is resolved, the Office would close its investigation into other areas as well. The matter has not been, an