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

ttorney 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" was ha live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roommate.

egistration status. Defense coun- sel also stated that Epstein traveled exten- sively over the last eight months and "in- variably returned to the to the United States. That inescapable reality emphati- cally proves he won't flee and entitles him to release - on any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate."

If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against releas

every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision was unanimously af- firmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. Peo- ple v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's

egistration status. Defense coun- sel also stated that Epstein traveled exten- sively over the last eight months and "in- variably returned to the to the United States. That inescapable reality emphati- cally proves he won't flee and entitles him to release - on any and all conditions the Court deems appropriate."

If the defendant comes forward with evidence that he will not endanger the community or flee the juris- diction, the presumption "is not erased." See United States v. Dominguez, 783 F2d 702, 707 (7th Cir. 1986). "Rather, the pre- sumption remains in the case as an eviden- tiary finding militating against releas

every 90 days." Id. Epstein appealed but Judge Pickholz's decision was unanimously af- firmed, on November 17, 2011, by a panel of five judges of the Appellate Division of the New York State Supreme Court. Peo- ple v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011). Notwithstanding Judge Pickholz's

As noted above, OPR is investigating the conduct of members of the USAO underlying Judge Marra's Order in the matter of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 v. United States. The Supreme Court has interpreted Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(i) broadly, that is, for uses that are "related fairly directly to some identifiable litigation,

Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Virginia; and the U.S. Attorney's Office of the District of Maryland, where he served as the Chief of the Appellate Division. After leaving federal service, Mr. Biran served as the named partner in his own firm, Biran Kelly, before joining Baker Donelson as a partner. 5

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

rney 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 “good friend” was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-s

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

torney 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 friend" was her live-in boyfriend, and that Mr. Ocariz was his former law-school roomm