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

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

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

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal 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

, that amounts to solicitation under State law. After all, prostitution, even when the allegations involve minors, is fundamentally a State concern, United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007) (noting that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed

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

ted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal st

Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2."Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena Issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of CND Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of certai

§ 5, Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat 3460; Pub.L. 104-294, Title VI, 605(0), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3510.) Complete Annotation Materials, see Title 18, U.S.C.A. 1211 EFTA00226409 United States District Court SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TO: SUBPOENA TO TESTIFY BEFORE GRAND JURY FGJ 05-02(WPB)-Fri./No

SERVED BY TITLE STATEMENT OF SERVICE FEES TRAVEL SERVICES TOTAL DECLARATION OF SERVICE' I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America Mal the foregoing information contained in the Return of Service and Statement of Service Fees is true and correct. Executed on DATE Signature of Ser

pervisory responsibility over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when: 1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or 2. The person is: a. A high-

10T1 GEN I l OFFICE OF TH£ SOLICITOR GENERAL OFFICE SOLICI GEN OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS OFfl, JUSTJ, PROGi EXEWTIVE O"ICE FOil THE UNITED STATB EXEWTI1 O"ICEF UNITED OFFICE OF DISPUTE RESOLUTION OFH DISPI RESOLI ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL COMMUNITY OIIIENTED CIVIL RIGKTS -- DMS

RAL -- CRIMINAL IIUUAUOI' IN\lfSTlGATlON DIVISION DRUG BUREAU OF tNFCRClMENT -- AOMlfflSTRATION PRISONS EXEQITlVE UNITfD STATB Ol'RCEFOR -- UNITED STATl'S MARSHALS SERVICE ATTOIINEYS UNITED U.S.NATIONAL STATES -- CENTIIAL BUREAU ATTORNEYS INT1'RPOI. IUIIIAU OF OfFKEOl' THE Al.<Oo<OI., -- FED

fice for the Northern District of Georgia. 7 United States Attorney First Assistant United States Attorney Criminal Chief Managing Assistant United Stales Attorney West Palm Beach Office Assistant United States Attorney - - - -- May 23, 2006 i"' USAO opens federal • '-)~i:t~·tt:ier~~: F1IIiia U

Chief] Oosterba[an] to participate by teleconference, thereby intercepting the DC meeting. Thoughts? Acosta told OPR that he had no concern about Departmental “scrutiny of the NPA scheme” and that “[i]f anything,” he was concerned whether the Department might direct the USAO to “drop this case.”96 2. Le

ule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 2." Fees and mileage need not be tendered to the witness upon service of a subpoena issued on behalf of the United States or an officer or agency thereof (Rule 45(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; Rule 17(d), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure) or on behalf of cert

.L. 95-405, set out as an Effective Date of 1978 Amendment note under section 2 of Title 7, Agriculture. Compass Annotation Matatiola, ass This 1S, U.S.C.A. 1209 EFTA00223907 18 § 6001 IMMUNITY OF WITNESSES Part 5 1970 Acts. Section 260 of Pub.L. 91-452 provided that: "The provisions of part V of

pervisory responsibility over the subject matter, or his/her designee, when: 1. Prior consultation or approval would be required by a statute or by Departmental policy for a declination of prosecution or dismissal of a charge with regard to which the agreement is to be made; or 2. The person is: a. A high-

the interest of fair and effective law enforcement within their individual judicial districts. USAM §§ 9-2.001, 9-27.140. As stated in the USAM, “[t]he United States Attorney is invested by statute and delegation from the Attorney General with the broadest discretion in the exercise of such [prosecutive] authorit

the anonymity of his clients by preventing disclosure of their identities to the CVRA petitioners. See Response to Court Order of July 6, 2015 and United States’ Notice of Partial Compliance (July 24, 2015). It is noteworthy that in 2020, when OPR attempted to contact victims, through their counsel, for inte

rosecution should Epstein renege on his agreement, and she outlined for Acosta and Sloman the steps she proposed to take while Epstein was pursuing Departmental review. Those steps included re-establishing contact with victims, interviewing victims in New York and one victim who lived in a foreign country,

008. After Epstein’s June 30, 2008 state court pleas, she sent out substantially similar notification letters to two victims who resided outside of the United States. 222 We will make our best efforts to ensure you are accorded the rights described. Most of these rights pertain to events occurring after

ent had the “right” to address Epstein’s concerns. He told OPR that because the USAO is part of the Department of Justice, if a defendant asks for Departmental review, it would be “unseemly” to object. During his OPR interview, Sloman described Acosta as very process-oriented, which he attributed to Acosta

nted expansion of federal law to cover conduct that has always been exclusively within the core of state powers. At this point in time, the need for Departmental oversight is critical. We appreciate this opportunity to submit our assessment of the key facts in this case and review of the pertinent federal stat

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