Epstein Secrets

nduct as defined in It U.S.C. § 2423(0. with minor female., in violation of Tide United States Code, Section 2423(b), all In viobation of Title It, United Stases Code, Section 2427(e); wing a facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce to knowingly persuade, induce, or entice minor female. to engage

United Sines, the State of Florida, and the Defendant soil) be sewed by the following proodum, THEREFORE, on the authority of It. Alexander Acosta, United Slates Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, prosecution in this District foe these offenses shall be defined in favor of prosecuticm by the Stat

f civil or criminal liability or a waiver °forty jurisdktional or other defense as to any person whose name does not appear on the list provided by the United Stale. 10. Except es to those individuals who elect to proceed exclusively under IS U.S.0 f 2255, as set (whin penigntph (St manta. neither Epstein's s

gain time he eamwd during his period of Incer«ration. I3. the ponies anticipate Nat this agreement will not be mede pan of any public record. if the United Slates receive, e Freedom of Information Act request or any compubory worm conunanding the disclosure of the agreement, int will provide notice to Epstein

." United States I. lordm, 915 F.2d 622, 628 (11th Cir. 1990) (quoting Rodriguez,. United States, 480 U.S. 522, 525 (1987) (itself quoting Russell° I. United States 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983))). There is no basis for departing from that rule. Given the strong evidence that Congress did not intend retroactively to ap

phrase. See, e.g., United States'. Garcia-M, 234 F.3d 217, 220 n.3 (5th Cir. 2000); United States I. Yang, 128 F.3d 1065, 1069-70 (7th Cir. 1997); United Statosi. Ellis 935 F.2d 385, 389-90 (1st Cir. 1991); see also United States'. Hoschouer, 224 Fed. Appx. 923, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion);

er Defendant Epstein's defense of the civil actions filed against him violates the non-prosecution agreement between Epstein and the United States. The United States' position in this matter would be very helpful to the Court and, accordingly, the Court requests that the United States appear at the hearing. Base

tion apaisai him h irntinned for any offense that usis the 'objecter0e grandjuria inwangation, il may be by way of anInfonnwion sIgned and filai by the United States Anone); end hereby nives Ma rie to be Indktcd by e gnnd jury as ha any aie offense, lit tyy lff hie 6of 7 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011809 EFTA0

leventh Circuit recently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States,. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011863 EFTA00192909 Ca

Document 29 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/26/2009 Page 8 of 36 B. Masha's Law Does Not Apply To This Case. The presumption against retroactivity and the Ex Post Facto clause preclude application of Masha's Law in this case, where the alleged predicate conduct was completed before 2006. 1. Congress Dld Not Intend

ed Epstein EFTA01718422 12/11/2007 11:37 FAX 002/099 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP Kenya W. Shan I o Call Wrier AS ": I lonorabic R. Alexander Acosta United Stales Attorney United States Attorney's Orrice Southern District of Florida , 33132 Re! Jeffrey F.pstein Ikar Alce: L,,,Ngwub. ONJp,nPa007 ww....at

Cocoa,, 74- 6h,e_ FC33 (13 I Date of Bitfh is„ 20) 1453 Place of Binh M t.) kfr-k • : f declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United Slates of America that the foregoing hs true and COTTOCI. and that I am the pe n named ahoive, ind I understand that any falsification of this statement is punishabl

ontES441/07 • sm.% EFTA01718412 Embassy of the United States of America Office of the Legal Attaché US Consulate File No. ActingCoordinator Americas, Europe, Middle East & Africa Desk Australian Federal Police Canberra, ACT Australia 03 December 2008 Re: Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. The United S

person can be charged with a criminal 39 EFTA01718477 offense, that is a violation of Florida Statutes Section 794.05; in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 2422(b) and 2. COUNT 14 (Enticement of a Minor: 18 U.S.C. § 2422(b)) 49. Paragraphs 1 through 19 of this Indictment are re-alleged

ot be 2 EFTA01718491 05/16/2008 11:16 FAX 05/18/08 FRI 11:09 FAX @004/006 1004 so novel as to implicate the so-called "clear statement rule," the Ex Post Facto clause, or the Due Process clause. As with the other legal issues, Mr. Acosta may elect to proceed with the case. Absence of coercion. With respect

applies based upon the crime charged, then "the defendant carries the burden of production to come forward with evidence to rebut the presumption." United State v. Ouartermaine, 913 F.2d 910, 916 (11th Cir. 1990). Although the statutory presumption places a burden of production on a defendant, the burden of

original jurisdiction over the offense, a motion EFTA00191636 for revocation of the order or amendment of the conditions of release." Accordingly, the United States hereby files this emergency motion with the District Judge assigned to the case for immediate revocation of the Magistrate Judge's Order. THE CHARG

tates Supreme Court has interpreted this amendment to prohibit the imposition of excessLve bail without creating a right to bail in criminal cases. See United States' Salerno. 481 U.S. 739, 754.55 (1987)("Eighth Amendment does not grant absolute right to bail"). The subject of bail and detention also implicates t

atter for the pu ose of arriving at f its own "independent conclusion." See United States I uncan. 897 F. Supp. 688, 689-90 (N.D.N.Y. 1995) citing United States Lam, 766 F.2d Ch. 17 Bail and Deternion 553 EFTA00191622 77, 80 (2d Cir. 1985); see also U ted States ' King, 849 F.2d 485, 489-91 (11th Cir. 1988)

ct future behavior *1039 and that the question is so vague as to be meaning- less. That calls into play the concept our Court of Appeals applied to the Ex Post Facto r Clause (albeit in a different con t from the present one) in United States Sutton, 521 F.2d 1385, 1390- (7th ir.1975) (quoting United State

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government"' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmad, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. 30 EFTA00099997 the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that concern is entirely separate from extending the statute of limitations for live claims, which is what Congress did here. Critica

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

Leahy's comments indicate that Congress declined to add language that would allow for the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that conduct in 2000). Indeed, that is precisely what Congress authorized when it extended the statute of limitations for such crimes

"United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States' shows an intent to bind all United States Attorney's Offices. Rather, the plea agreement covers only Defendant's liability in the SDFL."). As the S

Cir. Apr. 26, 2002) (summary order) (plea agreement does not bind other districts "even if the plea agreement purports to bind `the Government' or the "United States"); United States v. Bruno, 159 F. Supp. 3d 311, 321 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) ("The Court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the phrase `United States'

r v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) 56 Thom v. Ashcroft, 369 F.3d 158 (2d Cir. 2004) 47 Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (1970) 48 United State v. Nader, 425 F. Supp. 3d 619 (E.D. Va. 2019) passim United States v. Ahmed, 992 F. Supp. 682 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) 166 United States v. Ahmed, No.

of limitations for such crimes through the lifetime of the victim. 30 EFTA00103055 the resurrection of time-barred prosecutions, in violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause.14 But that concern is entirely separate from extending the statute of limitations for live claims, which is what Congress did here. Critica

at issue here is traditional ly a4 state concern because the activity is entirely local, and that the typical prosecution under federal policy that a United States Attomey’s Office should not pursue a prosecution. We do not think Simply, the commercial sexual exploitation of children is a federal concern, even

court. ; DATE: (BY) DEAUTY CLERK apenas, SCE This subpoena is issued upon application Name, Address and Phone Number of Assistant U.S. “Attomey of the United Statcs.of America Ann Marie C. Villafata, Assistant U.S. Attomey Ya P\f yy. fy 500 So. Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 Tel: (S61) 820-8711

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012671 2] 004/006 05/16/2008 11:16 FAX ioe 05/16/08 FRI 11:09 FAX 80 novel as to implicate the so-called “‘clear statement rule,” the Ex Post Facto clause, or the Due Process clause. As with the other legal issues, Mr. Acosta may elect to proceed with the case. Absence of coercion. With respect

1 of 7 EXHIBIT 37 EFTA00184577 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-37 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 2 of 7 U.S. Department of Justice United Stales Attorney Southern District of Florida DELIVERY BY FACSIMILE Jay P. Lefkowitz, Esq. Kirkland & Ellis LIP Citigroup Center New York, New York 100

ustralian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 aesimt June 30, 2008 NOTIFICATION OF IDENTIFIED VICTIMS NOTICE: IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 3509(d) AND FLORIDA LAW, THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT IS TO BE TREATED AS CONFIDENTIAL AND SHALL NOT BE DISCLOSED EXCEPT IN CONNECTION WITH

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 361-39 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/10/2016 Page 4 of 6 so novel as to implicate the so-called "dear statement rule," the Ex Post Facto clause, or the Due Process clause. As with the other legal issues, Mr. =may elect to proceed with the case. Absence of coercion. With respect to 1

. Al • • itorney Sincerely, R. Alexander Acosta First Assistant trailed States Attorney EFTA00289796 05/16/2008 11:16 FAL 05/16/08 FRI 21:08 FAX UNITED STATES DEPARTIVIE. Criminal Divisio Child Exploitation and Obsc 1 1400 New York. Avenue, NW . . Suite 600 Washington, DC 20530-0001 • 20005 TO: •R.

be 2 EFTA00289786 06/16/2008 11:16 FAI 06/18/08 FRI 11:09 FAX bliOS/006 1:9004 so novel as to implicate the so-called "clear statement rule," the Ex Post Facto clause, or the Due Process clause. As with the other legal issues, Mr. Acosta may elect to proceed with the case. Absence of coercion. With respect