Epstein Secrets

d by the FBI to confirm whether they were 17 or 18 at the time of their activity with Mr. Epstein." See Tab 26, September 24, 2007 Email from M. to J. Lefkowitz (emphasis added). This statement indicated that, at least the "six others" (and, as it turns out, all those identified except two) had reached the a

05 Wd z[:60 nu L00E-T I -Ain EFTA00209884 Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) From: , Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Sent: ues ay, September 18, 2007 9:13 AM To: 'Jay Lefkowitz' Subject: RE: Draft Agreements? Ili Jay - I know that the U.S. Attorney will not go below 18 months of prison/jail time (and I would strongly oppo

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 such elasticity in federal criminal stat

tion of Resolution of Epstein Investigation; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 10

e counsel: the Agreement and the addendum thereto; the USAO's letter of Crime Victims' Rights —Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 10, 2007; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 23, 2007; R. Alexander Acosta's l

n another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See so Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. UnitekStates, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

tion of Resolution of Epstein Investigation; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 10

e counsel: the Agreement and the addendum thereto; the USAO's letter of Crime Victims' Rights —Notification of Resolution of Epstein Investigation; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alexander Acosta dated October 10, 2007; Jay Lefkowitz's letter to R. Alcor Acosta dated October 23, 2007; R. Alexander Acosta's lett

in another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See s2 liftmen HufT, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen'. United Stales. 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to

f Justice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LL

stice Washington, D.C. 20530 June 23, 2008 Jay Lefkowitz„ Esq. Kenneth Starr, Esq. Kirkland and Ellis LL

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen'. United States 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to U

zgaiirkiend.coi cc Subject RE: Meeting A. Marie Villcialla Assistant U.S. Attorney — Ori From: \(USAFLS\)" Sent: 09/19/2007 11:51 AM AST To: Jay Leflcowitz Subject: Meeting Barry is available Monday morning. Our most flexible West Palm Beach magistrate is on duty on Monday, so, assuming we have signe

ey Epstein - con I ential (USAFLS) Dear Mr. Jay Lefkowitz [[email protected]] (USAFLS) I write to

.7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity be the dominant motive for the travel. See, e.g., Mortensen 'United States, 322 U.S. 369, 373 (1944) (". . .an intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be foun

September 17, 2007 email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz attaching draft Deferred Prosecution Agreement, E

entry [into the United States] cannot be said to be with the purpose `only that she might live in a state of concubinage."' 291 U.S. at 562. And in Mortensen, the Court likewise held that two women who took a trip from their home, returned home, and then resumed their illegal prostitution business did not

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 such elasticity in federal criminal sta

See Tab 37, February 27, 2008 Email from J. Sloman. Again, that claim was utterly false; Mr. Thomas’s contemporaneous hand-written notes, reviewed by Jay Lefkowitz, confirm that the USAO had violated settled Department policy and ethical rules by providing case-specific information about the Department’s legal t