Epstein Secrets

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the firm in

a phone) as the vehicle of the inducement. See, e.g., United States v. Mune!, 368 17.3d 1283, 1286 (11th 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

11° Cir. 1999); United States v. Rojas, 145 Fed. Appx. 647 (11° Cir. 2005); United States it Root, 296 F.3d 1222 (11th Cir. 2002). United States it Murrell, 368 F3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004), is in the same mold, except that, in that sting operation, the defendant communicated, not with the purported 13 yea

ein had proposed "house arrest" with extra 9 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001662 EFTA00209841 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP strip ent conditions—which Mr. Weinstein could only have learned from FAUSA AUSA or United States Attorney Acosta himself. 46. AUSA Weinstein then asked why Mr. Epstein should ... be tre

statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(6) 'requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the firm in

th the purported 13 year old girl, but with an undercover agent holding himself out to be the imaginary girl's father. The initial contacts between Murrell and the agent occurred in internet chatrooms named "family love" and "Rent F Vry Yng." Over time, Murrell sought to make arrangements with the girl'

the firm had been set up. In the late 1970s, CEO Harvey Kapnick tried unsuccessfully to split the time in

r"o4-eit • „ , • _ w02, 01.4,1 \I! , , is ;fig 1/4 Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011951 EFTA00226739 Definitions of Inducument I) U.S. I Murrell, 3681. 3d 1283, 1287 (II" Cir. 2004). In a charge of violation §2422(b), the term "induce means to stimulate the occurrence of "or to" cause the min

ce, a conviction under the statute only requires a finding that the defendant had an intent to persuade or to attempt to persuade.’ United States v. Murrell 368 F.3d 1283, 1287 (11th Cir. 2004) (citing United States v. Bailey, 228 F.3d 637, 638-39 (6th Cir.2000)). Thus, the targeted criminal conduct must

e statute makes clear, the essence of this crime is the communication itself—not the resulting act. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, in Murrell, underscores the point: The defendant in Bailey contended that attempt under § 2422(b) ‘requires the specific intent to commit illegal sexual acts r

the case and the plea negotiations. Mr. Thomas’s calls to the USAO initially were referred to Assistant United States Attorney David Weinstein. AUSA Weinstein informed Mr. Thomas that federal authorities were considering charging Mr. Epstein under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1591, 2422 and 2423, and told the reporter that