From: ' To: ' )" Subject: RE: Decision on motion to strike Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2021 15:12:38 +0000 Will do! From: / •c )' Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:06 AM To: Subject: RE: Decision on motion to strike Let's put this language in our letter! Maybe in the paragraph I added at the end about checking ID's at the door? I think this is an important point. First, as the Indictment itself makes clear, the defendant's and Epstein's interactions with Minor Victim-3 were part of a broader scheme and agreement to entice and transport minor victims with intent to commit illegal sex acts. Even if Minor Victim-3 was not ultimately transported as a minor, the core of a conspiracy is an agreement to engage in criminal conduct; there is no legal requirement that the agreed upon crime be completed. Because a conspiracy does not require the completion of a substantive crime, it does not matter whether Minor Victim-3 was ever in fact transported as a minor, or whether the elements of the substantive crimes of transportation an enticement are satisfied as to her. See Salinas, 522 U.S. at 65. From: Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:00 AM To: Subject: RE: Decision on motion to strike Sure thing. The discussion starts on page 184 of the PDF (157 of the pagination). From: Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:58 AM To: Subject: RE: Decision on motion to strike thanks, would you mind also sending me our brief on this? From: Sent: Sunday, November 7, 2021 9:49 AM To: < Subject: Decision on motion to strike Heys, Attached is Judge Nathan's first decision denying the pretrial motions. The (very brief) discussion of MV-3 starts on page 26. Thanks, EFTA00022177

Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York 1 Saint Andrews Plaza New York, New York 10007 EFTA00022178