Epstein Secrets

will not institute any criminal charges against any potential co-conspirators of Epstein, including but not limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian& Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Mareinkova. Further, upon execution of this agreement and a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Grand Jury inves

ot limited to Sarah Kellen, Adrian& Ross, Lesley Groff, or Nadia Mareinkova. Further, upon execution of

with relatively little disruption, continue to operate their highly lucrative business from any number of overseas locations"); • United States v. Hansen, 108 F. App'x 331 (6th Cir. 2004) (affirming district court order of pretrial release of defendant, a resident and citizen of Denmark-from where def

oenas. See Tab 2], September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution A ement. It alsoguarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such as , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised

in the Grand Jury subpoena such as , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand

court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seei

It will not institute any criminal charges against any potential coconspirator* of Epstein, Including but not limited to Sarah Kellen Adrian& R033, Lesley Groff, r $.dia hiarcinkova Further, upon execution of this op temcrel sod a plea agreement with the State Attorney's Office, the federal Omni Jury invest

not limited to Sarah Kellen Adrian& R033, Lesley Groff, r $.dia hiarcinkova Further, upon execution of t

Page 28 of 36 the same act are intended to have the same meaning.") (quotation and citation omitted). Two Mann Act cases are particularly apt. In Hansen', Half, 291 U.S. 559 (1934), the Government charged the defendant with violating the Mann Act after she returned to the country with a man with who

See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution A reernenThiso_auarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such as Sarah , and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised

ruction charges, many of the facts I included in that first proffer were hypothesized based upon our discussions and the agents' observations of Ms. Groff. We will need to interview her to confirm the accuracy of those facts. On a second count, we could rely on the incident where Mr. Epstein's private

l court decisions watering down the "for the purpose of " requi ment fly in the face of the two Suprems Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen'. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing

From: "Sue Price - Crew Unlimited" <I To: "'Lesley Groff" Subject: RE: Sue Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:20:26 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.jpg Dear Lesley, Great to meet you! Please do let me know what

om: "Sue Price - Crew Unlimited" <I To: "'Lesley Groff" Subject: RE: Sue Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 20:20

s with the Hodges as they are working at the moment in the Caribbean so at time they are not in the best internet access to Skype interview. Has Mr Hansen forwarded onto you all the resumes I have sent to him? Would you like me to forward them onto you? Do you work for Mr Epstein? I have been focusing

oenas. See Tab 21, September 24, 2007 Non Prosecution Agreement. It also guarantees that persons identified in the Grand Jury subpoena such i. | and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand Jury subpoena clearly violates the Non- Prosecution Agreement. Although Mr. Epstein has exercised hi

d in the Grand Jury subpoena such i. | and Leslie Groff and others will not be prosecuted. The new Grand

l court decisions watering down the “for the purpose of “ requirement fly in the face of the two Supreme Court decisions addressing that element. See Hansen v. Huff, 291 U.S. 559 (1934); Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369 (1944). Santos and Cuellar speak loudly and clearly against prosecutors seeing