Epstein Secrets

t amounted to, at most, the solicitation of prostitution, is unprecedented. Since prostitution is fundamentally a mute concern, (see United Stares' Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (1Ith Cir. 2007) (federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)

District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. • 3 RIP MIA 006480 EFTA00208961 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP 12. In A

ecently noted that federal law "does not criminalize all acts of prostitution (a vice traditionally governed by state regulation)." United States,. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176, n.1 (11th Cir. 2007); see also Offense Instruction 80, Eleventh -22- Case No. 08-80736-CV-MARRA P-011863 EFTA00192909 Case 9:09-

time, Epstein's attorneys advised that an agreement involving jail time would not be acceptable. On August 31, 2007, the FBI agents and I met with Drew Oosterbaan, Chief of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section, to discuss the evidence and theory of the prosecution. Ile had previously been provided wit

ppeared in charging district; "first appearance" for p rposes of § 3142(f) is not necessarily the same as "initial appearance"). Cf. United States Evans, 62 F.3d 1233, 1235-38 (9th Cir. 1995) (while defendant was entitled to detention hearing before magistrate in arresting district, only district cou

, Chief, Criminal Division Rolando Garcia, Deputy Chief, Criminal Division Karen Atkinson, Chief, Northern Region From: cc: A. Marie Villafafia Drew Oosterbaan Myesha Braden INTRODUCTION This third supplement summarizes the changes to the indictment and prosecution memo since the first presentation in Ma

n District of Florida, for making misrepresentations during a prior sentencing proceeding. In fact, Stephanie Thacker, a former deputy to CEOS Chief Drew Oosterbaan, has stated that she knew of no other case like this being prosecuted by CEOS. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012162 --- PAGE BREAK --- 12. 13. 14, 15. 16.

or intimidation. These are the elements required by the statute, and they are not met here. Although CEOS could, perhaps, point to United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11" Cir. 2007) as a case that, standing alone, involved wholly intrastate conduct, the facts of that case are far different in key re

s co-conspirators. None of this type of activity comes close to the facts regarding Mr. Epstein. Finally, but significantly, the prostitution ring in Evans was not, in fact, entirely intrastate as the companion case of one of the Evans co-defendants makes clear. See, United States v. Madison, 477 F.3d 13