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

tion Agreement. 21. His attorneys asked to "please do whatever you can to keep this from limit public." See Tab 27, September 24, 2007 Email from J. Leficowitz to,. 22. -replied that she had "forwarded your message only to Alex [Acosta], [ , and I don't anticipate it going any further than that." Id.

port of its motion to stay. DE 140. In that reply, the Government represented that it would voluntarily be providing information to the victims: "[Tjhe United States has agreed to provide some information to [the victims] even during the pendency of the stay and is undertaking a search for that information." DE

ernment which may be favorable to the defendant on the issues of guilty or punishment within the scope of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976)." The Court should adopt that language to the case at hand here. Interesting, the Standing Discovery Order — and asso

ich involves "File folder entitled '12/05/07 Starr to Acosta' containing drafts of 11/30/07 letters from A. Acost to K. Starr and from J. Sloman to J. Leficowitz re performance and victim notification with handwritten notes and edits by A. Marie Villafafia." This information goes very directly to the issues i

ttorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA00213042 Ms. A. Marie =., Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7. Indee

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo

y representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA00234496 Ms. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NM ¶ 7. Indeed

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo

ure the services of an attorney representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA00067439 June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA ¶ 7. Indee

several objections to the suggested modification in my letter to Mr. Acosta, dated December 21, 2007. See Exhibit 21, December 21, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta. I personally became aware of the inclusion of that language on Wednesday, August 13, 2008 and discussed the matter with yo

y representative for the victims." Exhibit 1, June EFTA00194724 Ms. A. Marie Villafana, Esq. June 19, 2009 Page 6 15, 2009 Letter at 2. It was the United States' obligation to select a suitable attorney representative, subject to the good-faith approval of Mr. Epstein's counsel. See Exhibit 2, NPA 17. Indeed

ovisions of the NPA. We informed the USAO of this request the very next day in a letter to Mr. Acosta. See Exhibit 3, November 29, 2007 Letter from J. Leficowitz to U.S. Attorney Acosta at 4. • In a December 4, 2007 letter, Mr. Acosta stated that he supported the defense's appeal to Washington. See Exhibit