Epstein Secrets

onally governed by state regulation). real Rather, its is limited t trafficking that jgntig,0Nop or is accomplished by force, fraud, or coercion". United Stales Evans, 476 ■3d 1176, 1179 it I (I l• Ctr. 2007). Nor, has the Department of Justice deemed it appropriate. e e.g. Unit tates Department of Justic

of several men for conspiracy to hold young women in peonage, and to traffic them for commercial sex acts, involving force and threats; bail issue); United Stares v. 4 A review of the Linked Sutes Department of Justice Civil Rights Division Anti-Trafficking News Bulktins confirms that this same pattern exists

many instances, due to the lack of uniform regulation, these businesses have served to transfer funds which were the proceeds of illegal activity. See United States' Valdes, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12432 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) (defendants transmitted proceeds of drug trafficking to Colombia); see also P.L. 103-325, Title

d to protect women agai t conduct, commercial whethv commercial or no t involves transportation and is exploitive or violent. See, e.g., De Vault I United States, 338 2d 179,180 (10th Cir. 1964) (applying the Act to protect girl who was raped). j r The Mann Act is a relatively antiquated morality statute th

d States! Hearn( 381 .3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (woman running prostitution business convicted for recruiting and transport of prostitutes under § 2421); United States' Footman, 215 1.3d 145 (I" Cir. 2000) (pimp who ran a prostitution ring convicted of violating § 2421). Likewise, in keeping with its purpose and tit

Int:our, P.G I proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or ) 'to avoid araction reporting requirement under State orf ederal law"'. United States Puche, 350 3d 1137 (11" Cir. 2003);' see also United States I Arditti, 955'.2d 331 (5° Cir.), reh'g denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. denie

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

t them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (1 3'Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v Puche, 350 F.3d t 137, 1149 (11th Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the

inappropriate. The money laundering statute was designed to be used and has been construed as a "concealment" statute, not a spending statute. See United Stales v. Shepard, 396 F.3d 1116 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1110 (2005); United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (money laundering sta

d terrorism. The type of business contemplated by Congress is one which, for a fee, accepts funds for transfer within or outside the United States. See United States v. Talebnejad 460 F.3d 563, 565 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Velastegui, 199 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1999). Once the money transmitter receives the

tes v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (woman running prostitution business convicted for recruiting and transport of prostitutes under § 2421); United States v. Footman, 215 F.3d 145 (1s1 Cir. 2000) (pimp who ran a prostitution ring convicted of violating § 2421). Likewise, in keeping with its purpose and

prostituting underage persons, either by force, fraud, or coercion. These cases bear no relationshijo to the circumstance at issue here. See, e.g., United Slates v. Norris, 188 Fed. Appx. 822 (11 Cir. 2006) (unpublished)(prosecution of several men for conspiracy to hold young women in peonage, and to traffi

age 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) 'to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law"'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11 Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. d

o lie because Mr. Epstein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. ss& United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11th Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (111° Cir. 2003) (An instruction on delibera

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 States v. XCitement Video. Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68-69 (1994); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 718 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222,

them in his house if they were under the age of 18. ss& United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11th Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (111° Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] ... that the de

first enacted by Congress in 1910 to prevent the use of interstate commerce to facilitate prostitution, concubinage, or other forms of immorality. Hoke I United States, 227 U.S. 308 (1913); Wilson I United States, 232 U.S. 563 (1914); Caminetti I United States, 242 U.S. 470 (1917). The statute's primary purpose was

illicit sexual conduct was an "important" "purpose of the travel, a significant motivating factor", or in other words, more than merely incidental. See United States' J!orschauer, 2007 WL 979931 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). We understand from conversations with Ms. Villafaiia that she believes that Mr. Epstein

Page 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' orAc) `to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law". United States'. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States" Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh'g denied, cert denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert. de

d terrorism. The type of business contemplated by Congress is one which, for a fee, accepts funds for transfer within or outside the United States. See United States v. Talebnejad, 460 F.3d 563, 565 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Velastegui, 199 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1999). Once the money transmitter receives the

tes v. Holland, 381 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (woman running prostitution business convicted for recruiting and transport of prostitutes under § 2421); United States v. Footman, 215 F.3d 145 (Ig Cir. 2000) (pimp who ran a prostitution ring convicted of violating § 2421). Likewise, in keeping with its purpose and

age 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) `to avoid a trenchetion reporting requirement under State or Federal law"'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5th Cir.), reh's denied cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert.

d terrorism. The type of business contemplated by Congress is one which, for a fee, accepts funds for transfer within or outside the United States. See United States v. Talebnejad, 460 F.3d 563, 565 (4th Cir. 2006); United States v. Velastegui, 199 F.3d 590 (2d Cir. 1999). Once the money transmitter receives the

ates v. Holland 381 F.3d 80 (2d Cir. 2004) (woman running prostitution business convicted for recruiting and transport of prostitutes under § 2421); United States v. Footman, 215 F.3d 145 (1th Cir. 2000) (pimp who ran a prostitution ring convicted of violating § 2421). Likewise, in keeping with its purpose and

Page 4 proceeds of specified unlawful activity,' or (c) `to avoid a transaction reporting requirement under State or Federal law'. United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137 (11th Cir. 2003);5 see also United States v. Arditti, 955 F.2d 331 (5'h Cir.), reh'g denied, cert. denied 506 U.S. 998 (1992), cert.

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

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

et them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11" Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (11™ Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] . . . that the d