Epstein Secrets

h W. Starr JaillAtz Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General , First Assistant U.S. Attorney fL 003 EFTA01718525 12/06/07 'THU 15:25 FAX UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TRANSMISSION OK TX/RX NO CONNECTION TEL SUBADDRESS CONNECTION ID ST. TIME USAGE T PCS. RESUL

rc approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit cases involving prosecutions under § 2422(b), most of which involve this prototypical fact pattern. See, e.g„ United States v. Morton. 364 F3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2004), vacated for further consideration in light stf Booker, 125 S. Ct. 1338 (2006), opinion reinstated by, 144

as a myriad of other federal crimes, and worked closely with law enforcement officials at the local and state levels. From 1973 through 1987, I was a United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey and presided over many criminal trials and proceedings. In 1979 I was selected by the United States D

seeking to persuade or induce someone to engage in activity that would constitute a crime. See Richard A. Posner & Katharine B. Silbaug, A Guide to Americas Sex Laws 44 (Univ. of Chi. Press 1998). Accordingly, to violate § 2422(b), an actor must know that he is trying to persuade not only someone under

dant believes he is interacting with an adult, he is not guilty of the federal crime even if he is dealing with a minor pretending to be a grown-up. Sec United States v. Thomas 410 F.3d 1235 (le Cir. 2005). Mr. Epstein did not use any facility of interstate commerce to do the forbidden act - to persuade, entice,

338 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 Cir. 1999); United States 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States v. Roias, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States v. Root; 296 F. 3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the def

te. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See so Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen v. UnitekStates, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in the conduct outlawed by Section 2 must be found to exist before the

of his parents. Mr. Epstein surely did not go Some Courts have held that the illicit sexual conduct must be: an "efficient and compelling purpose," United Stake v. Meacham 115 F.3d 1458, 1495 (10° Cir. 1997); a "motivating purpose " United Suites v. clugfc1.1, 49 F.3d 1079, 1083 (5° Cir. 1995). Of "at least

d to offer my views regarding the case of Jeffrey Epstein ("Mr. Epstein"), who entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("the Agreement") with the United State's Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") to resolve state and federal criminal investigations relating to his actions involvi

5). Of "at least one of the defendant's motivations for taking the trip in the first place," united States v. Sail 935 F.2d 385, 389 (I° Cir. 1991). SLAWUnited States v. ffotchouez, 224 Fed. Appx. 923 (11° Cir. 2007) (unpublished). EFTA00214726 12/07/07 FRI 15:40 FAX 1 213 680 8500 K RK LANDLELL LIP fril 022

(11° Cir. 2003); United States v. Garrett, 190 F.3d 1220 Ws Cir. 1999). United States v. Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11° Cir. 1999). United States v. Roias, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (111° Cir. 2005); United States v. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11 ° Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the defe

believed he is interacting with an adult, he is not guilty of the federal crime even if he is dealing with a minor pretending to be a grown-up. See United Slates,. Thomas 410 F.3d 1235 (10th Cir. 2005). Mr. Epstein did not use any facility of interstate commerce to do the forbidden act - to persuade, entice,

80 8500 RIRRLAND&ELL I 5 LIT Alan Dershowitz, Esq. December 7, 2007 Page 6 1 have reviewed the submissions made on behalf of Mr. Epstein to the United States Attorney's office in the Southern District of Florida, which concluded that the cited federal statutes are inapplicable to the allegations made agai

s, have essentially involved a standard fact pattern where an undercover agent pretends to be a young teenager on-line, and is directly solicitated. Ste United States I Famer. 251 F.3d 510 (5th Cir. 2001). See also United States I. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (11°' Cir. 2002); United States Sims. 428 P.3d 945,

1299 (11* Cir. 2003); United States'. Garrett 190 F.3d 1220 (11th Cir. 1999); United States Burgess, 175 F.3d 1261 (11th Cir. 1999); United States Roias, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11th Cir. 2005); United States'. Root 296 F. 3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). What all of these cases have in common is that the defen