Epstein Secrets

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

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good friend" wa

its legal impact as opinion and conclusion, not an assertion of fact. . 39. The Government admits that the NPA provided that, upon its execution, "the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall 5 EFTA00799807 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 407 Enter

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

its legal impact as opinion and conclusion, not an assertion of fact. . 39. The Government admits that the NPA provided that, upon its execution, "the United States, in consultation with and subject to the good faith approval of Epstein's counsel, shall 5 EFTA00799785 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 407 Enter

d language does not appear in Exhibit 4; it appears at DE361-5. 36. The government admits paragraph 36 but notes that Exhibit 2 is not an email to Humberto Ocariz; the referenced email appears at DE361-3. The second sentence of paragraph 36 is admitted. 37. Admitted. 38. The Government admits that on Septemb

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

ndependent third party, AUSA Marie Villafana had already proposed an “attorney representative.” She - had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a “good friend in the Appellate Division.” Ms. Villafana’s account was misleading, as it omitted that this

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

KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Response to Letter by FAUSA MI Dated May 19, 2008 In al 2008 letter to Jay Lefkowitz (See Tab 1), SDFL First Assistant U.S. rn Attoey MI provided what purported to be a summ of the events that have occurred during the investigation of Mr. Epstein. Mr. letter is fraugh

entative" to an independent third party, AUSA had already proposed an "attorney representative." She had proposed local products-liability lawyer, Humberto Ocariz, and claimed he had been recommended by a "good friend in the Appellate Division." Ms. account was misleading, as it omitted that this "good frien