Epstein Secrets

izes travel for the purpose of knowingly engaging in unlawful sexual activity with minors. United States Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 638 (3d Cir. 2004); United Stales v Tykarsky, 446 F.3d 458, 471 (3d Cir. 2006). This is the highest level of culpability in the four tier hierarchy of culpability that the Model Pen

ternational travel, left untouched the,standard for domestic travel, and thus underscores the strict standard needed for a prosecution in this area. See United States I Clark, 435 F.3d 1100, 1104- 05 (9°' Cir. 2006). 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 000735 EFTA00184609 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-43 Entered o

thern District of Florida February 1, 2007 Page 22 Clause imposes real limitations on Congress's power to criminalize essentially local behavior. See United States' Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) (Violence Against Women Act exceeded Congressional power under the Commerce Clause or § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment)

Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su

tivity for which a person can be charged with a criminal offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United StateW bode, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 22 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 55. Paragraphs 1 through 25 of this Indictment are re-alleged

rtment could bring charges, it should decline as a matter of prosecutorial discretion. The relevant factors are set forth in Section 9-27.230 of the United States Attorney's Manual, and those factors counsel against prosecution. Mr. Epstein has no criminal history of any kind. Given the unique nature of any pr

il litigation against him. They further demanded that Mr. Epstein waive EFTA00225865 • Page 44 case involving the murder of a federal official." U.S.A.M. § 9-2.031D. To put it mildly, that egregious example is a far cry from the situation at hand. Instead, the federal prosecutors' disagreement with t

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." Id. However, after Mr. Epstein's counsel conveyed to the prosecutors the fact that they had appeared to ig

S.A.M. § 9-2.031A. Even if these prerequisites are satisfied, however, the Department retains substantial discretion to decline prosecution. As the Policy explains, "[s]atisfaction of the three substantive prerequisites does not mean that a proposed prosecution must be approved or brought. Even then,

ly desires that result, whatever the likelihood of that result happening from his conduct." United Stalest Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 404 (1980), quoting United States' United States Gypsum Co., 438 U.S. 422, 445 (1978).7 The Supreme Court has repeatedly interpreted this language to require that the illegal activity

to which the legislation is addressed. After all, it is a first principle that the Constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers. See United States v.= 514 U.S. 549, 552 (1995) ("Just as the separation and independence of the coordinate branches of the Federal Government serve to prevent the a

92 F.2d 1083 (9th Cir. 1979), it nevertheless provides a valid basis for arguing against the institution of charges in this matter. The crux of the Policy is this: This policy precludes the initiation or continuation of a federal prosecution, following a prior state or federal prosecution based on su