{"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_count": 14, "url": "https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00013785", "pdf_url": "https://epstein-data.com/pdf/EFTA00013785.pdf", "pages": [{"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 0, "text_content": "LAW OFFICES \nALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nGEORGE G. GUIHRIE \nROBERT B. ALLEN \nREBECCA k BETTS \nR. TERRANCE ROOGERS \nDAVID B. THOMAS \nJAMES S. ARNOLD \nDAVID J. HARDY \nWM SCOTT WICKLINE \nPAMELA L. CAMPBELL \nPAMELA C. DEEM \nPHILIP J. COMBS \nSTEPHANE D. TRACKER \nBRYANT J. SPANN \nTERESA K. THOMPSON \nDEBRA C. PRICE \nCHRISTOPHER S. ARNOLD \nCHRISTOPHER D. PENCE \nPETER G. MARKHEM \nZACKARV B. MAZEY \nOF COUNSEL \nTHOMAS E. MCHUGH \nP. 0. 00X 3301 \nCHARLESTON, WEST VIRGINIA 25333-3394 \n500 LEE STREET. EAST. SMITE 800 \nCHARLESTON. WEST VIRGINIA 25301 \nJune 19, 2008 \nMr. John Roth \nSenior Associate Deputy Attorney General \nOffice of the Deputy Attorney General \nUnited States Department of Justice \n950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. \nWashington, D.C. 20530 \nDear Mr. Roth: \nTELEPHONE \nI304) 345-7250 \nFACSiMILE 004) 345.9941 \nWRITERS DIRECT DWI \nGmvil \nI write to offer my reaction to the May 15, 2008 correspondence from the United States \nDepartment of Justice Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section (\"CEOS\") regarding the federal \ninvestigation of Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of \nFlorida (\"USAO\"),I I will refrain from recounting Mr. Epstein's arguments in detail here, but, \nrather, will highlight salient points responsive to the CEOS letter. \nIn particular, I write from a background well familiar with child exploitation cases and \nvictim/witness issues. As the CEOS letter points out (CEOS letter at p. 3), I was a member of \nCEOS. In fact, I served as a federal prosecutor for twelve years; five years as an Assistant United \nStates Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and seven years at CEOS. I began \nworking as a trial attorney for CEOS in 1999, and was promoted to Deputy Chief for Litigation in \n2002, and ultimately to Principal Deputy Chief for the Section in 2004. \nAs those who have worked with me know, I have a history of working diligently on behalf of \nvictims of crime. While at the United States Attorney's O\n... [truncated, 2660 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/0 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=0]", "char_count": 2660}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 1, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 2 \nAct. Later, while at the Department of Justice, I co-authored the Department's Federal Child \nSupport Prosecution Handbook. \nMy work at CEOS permitted me to continue my efforts on behalf of vulnerable victims of \ncrime. While there, for example, I was part of the prosecution team in United States v. Dwight York, \n428 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2005), cert denied, 548 U.S. 908 (2006). York was the leader of a pseudo \nreligious organization, and systematically molested countless children, some as young as six years \nold. The case went to trial and York was sentenced to 135 years in prison. As part of that trial team, \nI was awarded the Attorney General's Award for Distinguished Service. Additionally, at CEOS I \nwas one of the architects of the Innocence Lost Initiative, a nationwide initiative designed to combat \nchild prostitution. For this, I was awarded an Assistant Attorney General's Award for Outstanding \nVictim/Witness Service. Likewise, I was awarded a subsequent Assistant Attorney General's Award \nfor Special Initiative in connection with a nationwide sex tourism prosecution initiative I helped to \ndevelop. \nI say all this not for any boastful purpose, but, rather, to make clear that I am fully cognizant \nof victim issues, and that I am no pushover in terms of prosecution standards. I am also very well \naware of the good work of CEOS, and the outstanding credentials of those who toil in that office. \nWith all due respect to CEOS, however (and recognizing that their review of this case was \nquite limited), given the facts and circumstances of this investigation, a federal prosecution of Mr. \nEpstein simply should not be countenanced. In my view, such prosecution would be counter to the \nimportant mandate of the Department of Justice as emblazoned on its seal, \"Qui Pro Domina Justitia \nSequitur,\" referring to the Attorney General \"who prosecutes on behalf of justice.\" \nAs you well know, it is f\n... [truncated, 3539 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/1 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=1]", "char_count": 3539}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 2, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. Job Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 3 \nthem you're 18 because if you're not, he won't let you in his house.\" \nTr. at 38-39. \nSecond, Mr. Epstein himself did not schedule such appointments. Third, Mr. Epstein would not \nknow who would be providing a massage at any particular time. Fourth, and importantly, Mr. \nEpstein's assistants were not directed to contact underage women, and were not aware of the true \nages of the women they contacted. In fact, more often than not, the masseuses themselves, or the \nindividuals who introduced the masseuses, made the initial contact. As a result, Mr. Epstein and his \nassistants were routinely unaware of the identities of many of these young women before they \narrived. \nThe allegations further include the assertion that Mr. Epstein engaged in unlawful sexual \nconduct with certain underage women who arrived at his house to provide a massage. At times, \nduring these massages, Mr. Epstein masturbated, engaged in some sexual touching, and a small \nnumber of alleged acts of penetration. However, most of the women who performed massages on \nMr. Epstein were over the age of 18. Many of the young women have sworn under oath that they, in \nfact, told Mr. Epstein that they were 18 or older, and that they did so because they knew that if they \nwere not 18 years old, they would not be allowed into Mr. Epstein's home. In fact, Mr. Epstein has \npassed a polygra h examination to this effect relative to the government's primary, and youngest, \nalleged victim \n. Indeed, many of the women also worked at local massage parlors, \nwhich presumably had a requirement that the masseuse have reached the age of majority. To the \nextent there are allegations that Mr. Epstein should have been alerted to certain underage women \nbased on conversations he allegedly had with them, those conversations would have taken place in \nperson and at his home, thereby precluding any prior scheduling with knowledge of their true ages. \nAs ex\n... [truncated, 3636 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/2 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=2]", "char_count": 3636}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 3, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THONIAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 4 \ntext and history indicate, these statutes were designed to address problems that are truly national \nand international in scope: human trafficking in § 1591; telephone or Internet sexual predation in \n§ 2422; and sex tourism in § 2423. Unlike the alleged conduct at issue here, those problems \nunquestionably present multi-jurisdictional obstacles that States and localities cannot confront \neffectively on their own. Mr. Epstein's conduct was purely local in nature, and the State of \nFlorida and Palm Beach County are effectively prosecuting and punishing that conduct. \nAlthough CEOS asserts, \"that a prosecution of Mr. Epstein might not look precisely like the \ncases that came before it is not dispositive\" (CEOS letter at p. 4), the fact is this case does not look \nanything like those cases. The facts here do not carry any of the hallmarks that typify an appropriate \nfederal prosecution for child exploitation as reflected in all such prior federal prosecutions. \nSpecifically, the facts here do not carry the hallmarks for a sex trafficking or child prostitution \nprosecution. Mr. Epstein did not target minors. In fact, the evidence indicates just the opposite. \nThere was no travel in interstate commerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity. \nThere was no prohibited use of a facility of interstate commerce. There was no commercial for profit \nsexual enterprise. There was no force. There was no violence. There was no use of drugs or \nalcohol. There was no child pornography. \n18 U.S.C. § 1591 is clearly designed to combat organized rings of individuals who engage in \nthe business of human trafficking, involving both a commercial and coercive component. As \nPresident Bush has noted: \ngenerally speaking, trafficking in persons refers to actions, often including the use of \nforce, fraud or coercion, to compel someone into a situation in which he or she will \nbe exploited for sexual pur\n... [truncated, 3294 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/3 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=3]", "char_count": 3294}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 4, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 5 \nA MI and fair review of the facts here is critical to this analysis. Yet, it is clear that CEOS \ndid not conduct such a review. In his recent letter to Jay Lelkowitz, First Assistant United States \nAttorney (\"FAUSA\") \nconfirmed our understanding that the USAO was to have \n\"facilitated\" an \"independent de novo review of the investigation\" by the Department. (May 19, \n2008 Sloman letter at p. 5). Yet, the CEOS review was not complete, and by its own terms not de \nnovo. \nAs CEOS itself noted, \"our review of this case is limited both factually and legally. We have \nnot looked at the entire universe of facts in this case. It is not the role of the Criminal Division to \nconduct a complete factual inquiry from scratch.\" (CEOS letter at p. 1). Indeed, entire subject areas \nrelevant to the inquiry were not considered at all by CEOS. In essence, CEOS was only in a position \nto make the most cursory possible review, an \"abuse of discretion\" review, without considering the \nfacts at the necessary level of detail, and without taking into account the many and varied issues of \nmisconduct we have raised in this case. As the CEOS letter indicates, \"we did not review the facts, \ncircumstances, or terms included in the plea offer nor any allegations that individuals involved in the \ninvestigation engaged in misconduct.\" (CEOS letter at p. 2). All of this begs the question — if it is \nnot CEOS' role to \"conduct a complete factual inquiry,\" and CEOS did not consider any of the \nallegations of misconduct here, which at the very least have created a strong appearance of \nimpropriety, and, at worst evidence an intent and effort to unfairly prejudice Mr. Epstein to the \nfinancial benefit of the friends and colleagues of the prosecution team in the USAO, then where and \nwhen can justice ever hope to be served in this case? This is a prosecution burden that cannot, and \nshould not, be brushed aside. \nWe contend the li\n... [truncated, 3657 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/4 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=4]", "char_count": 3657}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 5, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCRUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 6 \nfederal prosecution of Mr. Epstein would not be \"improper or inappropriate\" absent any review at all \nof the misconduct here, and absent a full review of the facts and law. The facts, the law, and the \nalleged misconduct are each necessarily inextricably intertwined with the question of whether or not \nthis is a viable federal prosecution. These imposed limits flawed the review from the outset. In any \nevent, CEOS concedes that the defense team makes \"many compelling arguments.\" (CEOS letter at \np. 5). In the end, then, one is left with the impression that the CEOS review and opinion, although \nconcluding that the USAO could push forward at its own discretion, is a much qualified one. \nThe federal prosecution of Mr. Epstein has been a moving target from the inception. Each \ntime the allegations, the witnesses or the applicable law is subject to a searching inquiry, we have \nfound that the allegations have been misrepresented, the law does not apply to the actual facts here, \nand the USAO prosecution theory falls apart. Yet, in the face of the voluminous evidence we have \nsubmitted in this regard, while acknowledging that the theories are \"novel,\" and that our arguments \nagainst federal prosecution are \"compelling,\" CEOS concluded, \"Mr. Acosta could rightfully \nconclude that this federal issue is best resolved by a jury\" and that \"the USAO has a good faith basis \nto fully develop the facts on this issue and brief the law to permit a court to decide whether the law \nappropriately reaches such conduct.\" With all due respect, and recognizing that CEOS may be —and \napparently was — limited in its authority, it should not be the prerogative of the prosecution arm of \nthe United States government to simply roll the dice, and let the court system just sort it out when \ndealing with the life and liberty of a United States citizen. The Department of Justice should not be \nso cavalier when labeling some\n... [truncated, 3718 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/5 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=5]", "char_count": 3718}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 6, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & 'THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 7 \nconsidered the extent of exculpatory evidence, including a psychosexual evaluation of Mr. Epstein \nand a polygraph examination demonstrating that Mat \ngenuinely believed at the time of the \nalleged conduct that the State's key witness (= \nwas over the age of 18. Then, after \nmonths of negotiations, the State reached what it believed was an appropriate resolution of the case. \nImportantly, this resolution was consistent with that of cases involving other defendants who had \nengaged in similar conduct. Implementation of the State resolution of the case was held in abeyance, \nhowever, due to the unexpected commencement of the successive federal criminal investigation. \nWhile it is true, as CEOS points out, (CEOS letter at p. 3) that many criminal prosecutions \nturn on issues of credibility of witnesses, to which many members of the defense team can attest \n(having had decades of federal criminal litigation experience among us), this does not serve to divest \nthe prosecutor of his/her duty to make a searching inquiry of the facts before using the power of \nprosecution, and the weight of the United States government, to level serious accusations. CEOS \nlikewise acknowledges as much, \"the prosecutors are in the best position to assess the witnesses' \ncredibility.\" (CEOS letter at p. 3). \nSince the CEOS letter also singles me out as someone who should be familiar with witness \nissues, I feel compelled to note that, of course, I am well aware that it is not uncommon for witnesses \nto give conflicting statements. I am also fully aware that the credibility of key government witnesses \nmay be strongly impacted by the $50 million incentive provided via the civil lawsuits at play, and \nencouraged by the government here. 3 I have also read many of the conflicts between witness \ntestimony and Detective \nown rendition of that testimony in his reports and/or search \nwarrant affidavit. Detective \napparently f\n... [truncated, 3644 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/6 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=6]", "char_count": 3644}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 7, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 8 \n0 \ndepositions in this matter. Ms. Belohlavek, and the SAO, is likewise well familiar with the breadth \nof the federal investigation, and has integrated that knowledge into the current enhanced state \nsentencing recommendation. The SAO remains firm in the position that the proposed state resolution \nis a sound one, and that there was no child exploitation here. Notably, however, not once during the \npendency of the federal investigation has the USAO ever reached out to its state prosecutive \ncounterpart that initiated this investigation in the first place to discuss the issues or to thoroughly \nferret out the facts or the witness credibility issues. \nIn the eight lines the CEOS letter accords to the topic of witness credibility CEOS asserts, \n\"there are multiple mutually-corroborating witnesses,\" (CEOS letter at p. 3). However, the CEOS \nletter does not highlight a single one. In contrast, we have put forth numerous \"mutually \ncorroborating\" witness statements. Far from supporting a federal prosecution, these statements \ninstead corroborate that I) the alleged victims lied to Mr. Epstein about their age; 2) there was no use \nof a facility of interstate commerce by Mr. Epstein; 3) there was no inducement or coercion; 4) there \nwas no commercial enterprise; and 5) there was no illicit sexual conduct. \nIndeed, Mr. Epstein took several steps to ensure that no minors entered his\n,\n home most \nnotably, by affirmatively asking the women whether they were actually 18. See e.g. \nTr. At \n38-39. That fact — which many of the potential witnesses have confirmed in sworn interviews —\nstrongly indicates that Mr. Epstein specifically intended to preclude an one under 18 from giving \nhim a massage. That fact is confirmed by, among other things, \ntestimony that \"he \nlikes the girls that are between the ages of like 18 and 20 . . . .\" \nTr. at 12. In fact, the \nevidence bears out that the majority of the women w\n... [truncated, 3005 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/7 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=7]", "char_count": 3005}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 8, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 9 \nA: \nCorrect. \nQ: \nYou didn't want Mr. Epstein to know that you were not 18 yet, right? \nA: \nCorrect. \nTr. (deposition) at 36. \nIn fact, Ms. \ntold Mr. Epstein that she was 18 years old, and confirmed this fact with \nPalm Beach Police. M. at 36. Beyond that, Ms. \n\"swore on her mother's grave\" that she \nand Mr. Epstein did not engage in sex of any kind. \nTr. (deposition) at 24. She further \nrepeatedly explained that prior to the time she went to Mr. Epstein's house (she went there only \nonce), nobody ever tried to coerce her to en a e m sexual activity with Mr. Epstein. Not over the \ntelephone, not over the Internet, not at all. \nTr. (deposition) at 31-32. These are not facts \nupon which a federal case can stand. \nMs. \nage was also unknown to Mr. E stein when she went to his home. \nwho was introduced to Mr. Epstein by Ms. \n, testified in her federal sworn interview \nthat Ms. \ntold her to lie to Epstein. agc \nTr. at 8 (\"she just said make sure you're 18 \nbecause Jeffrey doesn't want an underage girls') (emphasis added). Ms. \ntestimon \nstrongly suggests that Ms. \nlied to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms. \nalso self represented that she worked at a local erotic massage parlor that presumably required a \nminimum age. \nThe conduct of \nis likewise illustrative of \"mutually corroborating\" testimony \nwhich \nports the fact that this is not an appropriate federal case. In the same way that Ms. \nwas referred to Mr. Elan \nand brought to his home without havin been introduced or \nacquainted in any manner, Ms. \nwas referred by someone else, \n, who also told \nher to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age, which she did. t \nTr. at pp. 8-9). \nCEOS seeks to buttress the USAO prosecution by asserting \"it is possible to satisfy that \nelement [proof of specific intent as to the age of the alleged victims] with proof that the defendant \nwas deliberately ignorant of facts which would suggest that the person was a m\n... [truncated, 2850 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/8 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=8]", "char_count": 2850}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 9, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 10 \nof all of the facts in order to have a defense in the event of a subsequent prosecution.\"). Thus, the \nfacts preclude reliance on the concept of deliberate ignorance as a substitute for proof. \nThe fact that the search warrant affidavit in this case is rife with mis-statements and \nomissions regarding the key element of age is critical. However, CEOS concludes with no apparent \nsupporting analysis, \"despite the numerous factual errors you describe, the U.S. Attorney's Office \ncould still plausibly argue that the mistakes —whether inadvertent or intentional — were not material \nto the determination . ...\" (CEOS letter at p. 3). Although, as CEOS notes, there are \"numerous\" \nsuch misrepresentations, through affirmative statement or intentional omission, a focus on but one of \nthose misrepresentations highlights that such misrepresentations were, in fact, material. The fact is \nthat Detective \ngrossly misrepresented Mr. Epstein's intent as it related to the age of the \nwomen he permitted entry to his residence. \nIn the search warrant affidavit, Detective \naffirmed that \nclaimed: \n[Mr. E stein told her the younger the better. \nAnd, \nstated she once tried to bring a 23 year old female and Epstein stated that the \nfemale was too old. \nWhat Detective M, \nno doubt intentionally, omitted was =s\n further explanation, \nwhich rendered Mr. Epstein's comments innocuous: \nA: \nLet me put it this way, he — I tried to bring him a woman who was 23 and he didn't \nreally like it. \nQ: \nHe didn't go for it? \nA: \nIt's not that he didn't go for it. It's just that he didn't care for it. And he likes the \ngirls that are between the ages of 18 and 20. (= \nStatement at 12) (emphasis \nadded). \nHad that critical information, information that turns allegedly illegal conduct into more \ninnocent conduct, been included, it would have seriously undermined the probable cause for the \nsearch warrant. \nSimilarly, and equally prob\n... [truncated, 2376 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/9 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=9]", "char_count": 2376}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 10, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 11 \nsaid tell him you're 18 because if you're not, he won't let you in his house. \nSo I said I was 18. As I was giving him a massage, he was like how old are you. \nAnd then I was like 18. But I kind of said it really fast because I didn't want to make \nit sound like I was lying or anything. \nTr. at 38-39. \nThus, consistent with the guidance provided in Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), the \nsearch warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material \ninformation. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. \nThe age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein's intent in that regard, is an element of the \ncrimes that must be proven in order to sustain a conviction. In particular, § 2422(b) requires that the \ndefendant specifically intended to target a minor. age, a, United States v. Murrell, 368 F.3d 1286 \n(11th Cir. 2004) (\"[T]o prove an attempt the government must first prove that [defendant], using the \nintemet, acted with a specific intent to persuade, induce, entice, or coerce a minor to engage in \nunlawful sex.\") (Emphasis added). Section 2422(b) expressly requires that the crime be committed \n\"knowingly,\" and that requisite mental element applies as to each element of the crime. United \nStates v. XCitement Video. Inc., 513 U.S. 64, 68-69 (1994); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, \n718 (9th Cir. 2004); United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. \nBailey 228 F.3d 637, 638-639 (6ih Cir. 2000). How, then, could the USAO \"plausibly argue\" that a \nmisrepresentation about an element of the crime could be viewed as \"not material\"? If the elements \nof the alleged crime are not met, there is no probable cause to sustain the search warrant in the first \ninstance. If the elements are not met, there is no federal crime. That is material. \nMoreover, it is clear from the plaint text of\n... [truncated, 3645 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/10 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=10]", "char_count": 3645}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 11, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 12 \nthe telephone (which we deny), it is black letter law that the mens rea must coincide with the actus \nreus. Thus, the government must prove that Mr. Epstein has the specific intent to target a known \nminor to engage in prohibited sexual activity at the time of the call. We have seen zero evidence of \nthis. To the extent Mr. Epstein later may have persuaded a particular individual to engage in \nunlawful sexual activity during a massage, such persuasion occurred face to face, and can not work \nretroactively to render the earlier phone call an offense under the statute. \nAs to the purported violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423 for allegedly traveling in interstate \ncommerce for the purpose of engaging in illicit sexual activity, CEOS does not deny that Mr. Epstein \nwas returning to one of his residences when he traveled to Florida.4 CEOS explicitly stated it \"fully \nunderstand[s] our argument\" (CEOS letter at p.2) that Mr. Epstein should not be charged under \n§ 2423(b) because the dominant purpose for his traveling to Palm Beach was not to engage in illegal \nsexual activity, but to simply return to one of his residences. Rather, this is apparently another \n\"compelling\" point of law which may be left to \"a court to decide whether the law properly reaches \nsuch conduct.\" (CEOS letter at p. 2).5 Notably, implicit in this concession by CEOS is that the law \nhas never before been so applied, that is, there is no precedent for a court to extend the statute as the \nUSAO seeks to do here. In fact, the United States Supreme Court prohibited the criminalization of \ntravel under identical circumstances over a half century ago. Sis, Mortenson v. United States 322 \nU.S. 369, 374 (1944) (intention to engage in proscribed conduct must \"exist before the conclusion of \nthe interstate journey and must be the dominate motive of such interstate movement.\" (Emphasis \nadded.) \nBeyond an absence of proof regarding the trave\n... [truncated, 3965 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/11 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=11]", "char_count": 3965}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 12, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 13 \nhad attained the requisite legal age. Finally, although 18 U.S.C. §2423(f)(2) also defines \"illicit \nsexual conduct\" as any commercial sex act with a person under the age of 18, 18 U.S.C. §2423(g) \nalso provides a specific affirmative defense as to that age element if proven by a preponderance of \nthe evidence that Mr. Epstein reasonably believed that the young women had attained the requisite \nlegal age. As we have demonstrated, time and again the women involved lied to Mr. Epstein as to \ntheir true age, representing that they were, in fact, over the age of 18. Many of them also represented \nthat they worked at local massage parlors, which presumably would have imposed a legal age \nrequirement. \nLastly, in contrast to 18 U.S.C. §1591, Mr. Epstein's conduct did not involve trafficking of \nwomen or children in the sex industry, and was not part of any phenomenon that, in the aggregate, \nhad an economic impact on interstate or foreign commerce. Additionally, Mr. Epstein did not \nbenefit financially from the alleged conduct. Therefore, as the SAO determined, and still believes, \nMr. Epstein was a customer, a \"John\" for whom prosecutions are best left to the State to address. \nIndeed, there is no reported precedent extending federal law to a local \"John\" who does not violate \nthe child exploitation statutes. Indeed, CEOS does not point to a single case where federal \nprosecutors have used § 1591 in a case involving facts like these. Instead, every § 1591 prosecution \nhas involved national or international sex trafficking and/or for-profit prostitution rings, involving \nthe knowing use of minors and/or forcible coercion, or forcible rape, physical abuse or intimidation. \nThese are the elements required by the statute, and they are not met here. \nAlthough CEOS could, perhaps, point to United States v. Evans, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. \n2007) as a case that, standing alone, involved wholly intrastate\n... [truncated, 3746 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/12 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=12]", "char_count": 3746}, {"efta_number": "EFTA00013785", "page_number": 13, "text_content": "ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC \nMr. John Roth \nJune 19, 2008 \nPage 14 \nAppx. 849, 2006 WL 14581 at *3 (11th Cir. 2006) (to establish Sims's guilt on the sex trafficking of \na minor count, the government had to show that Sims benefited financially from Owen's sexual \nactivity and that Sims knew that (a) force or coercion would be used to cause Owens to engage in a \ncriminal sex act or (b) that Owens was under the age of 18.) (emphasis added). Again, none of these \nfactors is present in this case. The Eleventh Circuit's interpretation of the statute makes perfect \nsense: were § 1591 not limited in this fashion, it would threaten to criminalize a host of localized \nbehavior that has nothing to do with human trafficking, and, thus, is of no valid federal interest. \nIn sum, to accord discretion to the USAO, albeit without benefit of the requested full de novo \nreview, to exercise authority to pursue a prosecution which involves a \"novel\" application of three \nfederal statutes in the face of numerous \"compelling arguments\" is not warranted, as it is not \nsupported by the facts, the law, or justice. Echoing the admonition of the Supreme Court in the \nBerger decision, the Comment to Rule 3.8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct (Special \nResponsibilities of a Prosecutor), says it best \"A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of \njustice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to \nsee that a defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of \nsufficient evidence.\" This is a responsibility that can not be taken for granted. The government bears \nthe burden of assuring that it possesses sufficient evidence to prove each element of a crime with \nrespect to some specific victim before publicly branding Mr. Epstein a child molester. In this case, \nhowever, the USAO has not met its burden for any victim for any of the crimes alleged. It is not \nenough to simply gloss over the requ\n... [truncated, 2824 chars — for the full page use /api/corpus/document/EFTA00013785/13 or ?id=EFTA00013785&page=13]", "char_count": 2824}]}