Epstein Secrets

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

cts, they travel for that purpose, is to emphasize that which is incidental and ignore what is of primary significance." Id. at 562-63. Likewise, in Mortensen'. United States 322 U.S. 369 (1944), defendants were convicted after two women they employed as prostitutes at their Nebraska brothel traveled to U

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

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 such elasticity in federal criminal stat

minor would be caused to engage in a commercial sex act. United States v. Wild , 143 Fed. Ar.938, 942 (10th Cir. 2005). Epstein's assistants, and Leslie Graff, could be considered people who recruited or obtained by any means girls under the age of 18 who would be caused to engage in commercial sex acts.

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen v. United States , 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo v. United States , 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of

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

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 such elasticity in federal criminal sta

prove that the defendant's sole purpose for traveling and transporting the individual was to have the individual engage in illegal sexual activity. Mortensen v. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944); Crespo v. United States, 151 F.2d 44, 46 (1st Cir. 1945). This offense carries a statutory maximum of t

g in earnest to end this investigation. FBI New York agents are interviewing several girls identified by Jane Doe #11. At this time, we do not have Lesley Groff's phone records, so we do not have sufficient evidence to charge her. She is referred to by her initials in the indictment, and we will hopefully be

#11 that he would pay her to bring more girls. Jane Doe #11 implicates two other Epstein assistants — Lesley Groff and M. We had anticipated that Groff would be a witness, not a target. When the agents went to Groff's house to interview her, she went upstairs, claiming she needed to change her bab