Epstein Secrets

re are any that you have not received from the USAO or CEOS, please advise and we will fedex them to you without delay. Chicago Hong Kong London Munich Now York San Francisco Washington, D.C. 08-80736-CV-MARRA RFP WPB 001665 EFTA00209844 KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP John Roth, Esq. June 19, 2008 P

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

re arc any that you have not received from the USAO or CEOS, please advise and we will fedex them to you without delay. Chicago Hong Kong London Munich Now York San Francisco Washington,. 3505-019 Page 2 of 63 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00003274 EFTA00

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

neth W. Starr cc: Honorable Alice Fisher, Assistant Attorney General Jeffrey H. Sloman, First Assistant U.S. Attorney Chicago Hong Kong London Munich Now York San Francisco Washington, D.C. EFTA00176207 12/07/07 FRI 15:34 FAX 1 213 080 8500 K I RKLAND&ELL I S LLP tr/I008 HERBERT J. STERN

t to engage in sexual activity with a minor in another state. The travel must be for the purpose of engaging in the unlawful sexual act. See also Hansen,. Huff, 291 U.S. 559, 562-63 (1934) and Mortensen I. United States, 322 U.S. 369, 374 (1944) ("An intention that the women or girls shall engage in

there are any that you have not received from the USAO or CEOS, please advise and we will fedex them to you without delay. Chicago Hong Kong London Munich New York San Francisco Washington, D.C. HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012136 --- PAGE BREAK --- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP John Roth, Esq. June 19, 2008 Page 2 As y

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