Epstein Secrets

US DeP•Mlilla I tr4 tram Race.” Fodor& AulaSciti Attailnistratien 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001697 EFTA00209876 U.S. Department of Justice United Slates Attorney Southern District of Florida 500 South Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 3340! (361)820-8711 Facsimile: (561)820-8777 May

ta United States Att A. Marie Assistant United States Attorney 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001698 EFTA00209877 05/15/2007 16:57 FAX 5618021787 USA0 WPB FL gaol TX REPORT IX#i TRANSMISSION OK Sals *****Atii************* TX/RX NO 4676 CONNECTION TEL 8358691 SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST.

a result of the federal investigation], or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A (emphasis added). Consistent with that principle, and of particular relevance to this case, the Department itself just recently observed

inding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.' United States I Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States'. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must occur through the interstate facility, not thereafter, and

stigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. to J. Leflcowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

ction 2422(b) expressly requires that the crime be committed "knowingly," and that requisite mental element applies as to each element of the crime. United Slates v, XCitement Video, Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68.69 (1994); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9lh Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222,

imited to sex trafficking that involves children or is accomplished by force, fraud, or coercion." United States v. Evans 476 F.3d at 1179 n. 1. Sec aho United States v, Sims, 171 Fed. 3505-019 Page 19 of 63 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00003291 EFTA00157673 ALLEN GUTHR

a result of the federal investigation], or acquittal on the merits shall be a bar to any subsequent federal prosecution for the same act or acts." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031A (emphasis added). Consistent with that principle, and of particular relevance to this case, the Department itself just recently observed

ically underscore these principles and help to highlight why federal prosecution in this case would be improper as a matter of both law and policy. See United States v. Santos, No. 06-1005 (June 2, 2008); Cuellar v. United States, No. 06-1456 (June 2, 2008). Though they both address the interpretation and applica

gation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from I. =II to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

to undcdakc discussion with the Slate Attomey's Office Ia custom caswpiiiiitim with these procedures. which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' intero.t, pursuant to the Petite policy. We reiterate that this case was at heart a local mutter that was being billy addressed by the state crimi

ugh such misconduct was, as we contend it is, inextricably intertwined with the credibility of the accusations being made against Mr. Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office in Miami (''USAO"). Moreover. CEOS did not assess the terms of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement now in effect, nor did CEOS revi

estigation. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email &SIMNEL to J. Lefkowitz (stating that "one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett) as a good choice" to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein's paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein).

at issue here is traditional ly a4 state concern because the activity is entirely local, and that the typical prosecution under federal policy that a United States Attomey’s Office should not pursue a prosecution. We do not think Simply, the commercial sexual exploitation of children is a federal concern, even

court. ; DATE: (BY) DEAUTY CLERK apenas, SCE This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. “Attomey of the United Statcs.of America Ann Marie C. Villafata, Assistant U.S. Attomey Ya P\f yy. fy 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 Tel: (S61) 820-8711

Special Master to resolve fees disputes as well as to handie the selection of the attorney, I would recommend that we use retired llth Circuit Judge Joseph Hatchett instead of Judge Davis because of Judge Davis's heaith problems. (No one has contacted Judge Hatchett yet, but one of the District Judges in Miami me

tates Attorney should determine, based on information he deems reliable, that Epstein has violated any of the conditions of this Agreement, then the United States Attorney may at any time initiate prosecution against Epstein for any offense. In this case, the United States Attorney will furnish Epstein with ti

n to undertake discussion with the State Attorney's Office to ensure compliance with these procedures, which compliance will be necessary to satisfy the United States' interest, pursuant to the Petite policy. In consideration of Epstein's agreement to plead guilty and to provide compensation in the manner describe

ecial Master to resolve fees disputes as well as to handle the selection of the attorney, I would recommend that we use retired 11th circuit Judge Joseph Hatchett instead of Judge Davis because of Judge Davis's health problems. (No one has contacted Judge Hatchett yet, but one of the District Judges in Miami

who may have civil damages claims against Mr. Epstein. The U.S. Attorney's Office and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (jointly referred to as the "United States") have conducted an investigation of Jeffrey Epstein regarding his solicitation of minor females in Palm Beach County to engage in prostitution. Mr.

ecial Master to resolve fees disputes as well as to handle the selection of the attorney, I would recommend that we use retired 11th Circuit Judge Joseph Hatchett instead of Judge Davis because of Judge Davis's health problems. (No one has contacted Judge Hatchett yet, but one of the District Judges in Miami

iminal statutes, including those enacted to protect important federal interests. In cases involving the federalization of activity that is within the States’ historic police power, Congress must speak with particular clarity. See, e.g., Will v. Michigan Dep’t of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 65 (1989). 12

tion. See Tab 29, October 5, 2007 Email from M. Villafana to J. Lefkowitz (stating that “one of the District Judges in Miami mentioned [retired Judge Joseph Hatchett] as a good choice” to decide any fee disputes concerning Epstein’s paying for a lawyer to represent the unnamed women in claims against Epstein). Th

tter points out (CEOS letter at p. 3), I was a member of CEOS. In fact, I served as a federal prosecutor for twelve years; five years as an Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and seven years at CEOS. I began working as a trial attorney for CEOS in 1999, and was pr