Epstein Secrets

it utterly fails to demonStrate 1 t t • Government theory supports what at its essence is a federalization of underage prostitution {see letter to Lelkowitz of December 13. 2007 al lig 4, per I). This is compellingly sx) kir several reasons: • Absent testimony, the evidence does not exclude the possibi

stal Service. Thank you. EFTA01718527 • U.S. Departinent of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LLP New York, New York 10022-4675 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Jay: Miami, FL 33132-2111 Facsimile: December 6, 2007 I wr

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of Florida FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET DATE: December 6, 2007 TO: Jay Leflcowitz, Esquire FAX NUMBER: SUBJECT: Epstein NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 9 @001. EFTA01718526 U.S. Department of Justice United States At

zen Eleventh Circuit cases involving prosecutions under § 2422(b), most of which involve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g„ United States v. Morton. 364 F3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light stf Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144 Fed. Appx.

ffrey Epstein, Faces Increased Calls To Resign," reports that the Miami Herald has revealed that Acosta "made a deal with Washington, D.C. attorney Jay Lefkowitz, his former colleague, at a breakfast meeting in October 2007," which "closed an FBI probe into whether there were more victims, granted immunity to

"made a deal with Washington, D.C. attorney Jay Lefkowitz, his former colleague, at a breakfast meeting in

an underage girl at the club." The DC says neither the President nor Mar-A- Lago have confirmed that Epstein was banned. The Washington Times (7/8, Morton, 492K) reports Clinton said in a statement Monday that he knows nothing about the charges facing Epstein. Clinton said in the statement that he "kn

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

re silly, unfounded and alleged violations which are not defined as violations under the NPA but arrived at by the USAO. Thus, EPSTEIN is left with "Morton's Fork" in his side - the undesirable choice of taking the 5th Amendment and having a judgment (summary or otherwise) entered against him in the ci

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citin Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege

re silly, unfounded and alleged violations which are not defined as violations under the NPA but arrived at by the USAO. Thus, EPSTEIN is left with "Morton's Fork" in his side - the undesirable choice of taking the 5h Amendment and having a judgment (summary or otherwise) entered against him in the civ

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

re silly, unfounded and alleged violations which are not defined as violations under the NPA but arrived at by the USAO. Thus, EPSTEIN is left with "Morton's Fork" in his side - the undesirable choice of taking the 5th Amendment and having a judgment (summary or otherwise) entered against him in the ci