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 Appx. 923, 926-27 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished opinion);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

andum Subjeci Operation Leap Year: Notification of Breach USAO No. 2006R0 181 June 9, 2009 To Jeffrey H. Sloman Acting United States Attorney Robert K. Senior First Assistant U.S. Attorney Rolando Garcia Deputy Chief, Criminal Division, West Palm Beach Karen Atkinson, Chief Chief, Criminal Section I, N

at Mr. Epstein could "agree" to the occurrence of a predicate pursuant to his NPA obligations but still contest that the plaintiff was injured, see United Stated, Scheidt, supra (finding each to be a separate element) and the letter from Mr. Acosta to Mr. Starr, supra December 4, 2007 letter at p.2 which agr

, judicial restraint, and the rule of lenity applied in construing a statute, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) a

victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 U.S.C. § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defe

an United States Attorney By: s/A. Marie Villafafia A. Marie Villafafia Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Robert K. Senior, Acting First Assistant U.S. Attorney Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Division EFTA00194763 Roy BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK Scow A. KORNSPAN LARR

ired by ¶8 of the NPA? 6. Whether damages are to be awarded based on injury to a plaintiff or based on the number of separately proven claims, see United States'. Raker, 2009 WL 4572785 (E.D.Tex., 2009) where the Court rejected the contention that damages were to be allocated per violation? We are not askin

s a victim of one or more offenses enumerated in 18 . § 2255, and, as such, asserts a cause of action against Defendant pursuant to this Section of the United States Code. 30. As a direct and proximate result of the offenses enumerated in 18 . § 2255 being committed against the then minor Plaintiff by Defendan

rely, Jeffrey H. Sloman United States Attorney By: s/A. Villa afia A. Assistant United States Attorney cc: Jeffrey H. Sloman, U.S. Attorney Robert K. Senior, Acting First Assistant U.S. Attorney Chief, Northern Division EFTA00183809 ROY BLACK HOWARD M. SREBNICK SCOTT A. KORNSPAN LARRY A. STUMPF MA