Epstein Secrets

19 20 21 22 O. And then you said during the Questioning Of One or two of the attorneys that you entered into it 24 separation agreement with Mt. Epstein that included a 25 contident lllll y agreement and a release. Do you 15411 S32-/100 MIME COAT SEPORTIKG AGENCY, BC tfati 032-71St emreelme”Ii

061) 012-9504 onmeesrnuonioen:ornorarTananona sow,. tot ...4" *" •••••••••••••••••• Ormon:OurtararcaOrn P go 140 4 6 0. Okay. And now. did Mt. Epstein contribute any emery to the purchase of any of these properties? A. NO contribute the -- he contribute the $20.000 towers., the purchase of the f

•COuniniscant Pp. 116 1 2 O. That never happened? 3 A. Never happened. 4 O. You mentioned that Mr. Epstein put you in 5 contact with Mr. Murrell, 18 that Correct? MR. °UPTON: Fag. 7 THE 14119690: Hot Hr. Crinkle.. • BY MR. METMELSICINt • O. Huh? 10 A. It wasn't Mr. Epstein. 11 O.

research contacts available. The employee was put in contact with a former colleague who was then conducting eye research at Washington University. Mt Epstein organized several meetings to determine how the colleague could be of assistance, including by arranging for further meetings with experts at Washin

.3di261 (11*Cir. 1 ); United States Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (I Id' Cir. 005); United States Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11* Cir. 200 ). United States' Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283 (11* Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

ust meet, shall consider that it is the intent of the panics In place these identified 1114111113 in the 1411% position ILI they would have been had Mt. Epstein been convicted al vial. No mac; no kis." 2 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011818 EFTA00192864 Srstrely. R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA UNITED STATES ATTO

facility (the mail, phone, or intemet)—not thereafter—and the scienter element must be present while the facility is being used. See United States'. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cir. 2004) ("[T]he government must first prove that [Defendant], using the Internet, acted with a specific intent to per

elines that would have resulted in Mr. Epstein spending far more time in prison than you projected; I contacted the Bureau of Prisons to see whether Mt. Epstein would be eligible for the prison camp that you desired; and I told you my suspicions about the source of the press "leak" and suggested ways to avo

e.g. with himself or a third party), without then actually committing any sex act himself, he would nevertheless violate §2422(b)." United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11th Cu. 2004). See also United States v. Bailey 228 F.3d 637, 639 (61° Cir. 2000) ("Congress has made a clear choice to crimi

research contacts available. The employee was put in contact with a former colleague who was then conducting eye research at Washington University. Mt Epstein organized several meetings to determine how the colleague could be of assistance, including by arranging for further meetings with experts at Washin

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Murrel, 368 F.3d 1283, 1286 (11ih Cir. 2004) (government must ... prove that Murrell, using the intemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade a means to engage in unlawful sex). In fact, we have reviewed every indictment filed i

ver had no contact whatsoever with Mr. massages, but the p or coerce. See e.g., close in a sexual way Ms. guy." the phon with Ms. Id. at 10. Ms Epstein over the Internet or phone; and was neve the phone or Internet. Id. at 24-25. In fact, Ms. Epstein or any of his employees prior to arriving at pst

in order to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a finor to engage in a proscribed sexual act—rather than the sexual act itself. See United States Murrell, 368 F.3d 1283, 1285 (11th Cir. 2004) ("The underlying criminal conduct Congress expressly proscribed in passing § 2422(b) is the persuasion, induc