like were involved, the unsavory facts were carefully assessed by experienced state prosecutors who aggressively enforce state criminal laws. No one turned a blind eye to potential offenses to the public
order. To the contrary, the Palm Beach State Attorney's Office conducted an extensive 15-month investigation, led by the chief of the Sex Crimes Division. Mr. Epstein was then indicted by a state grand jury on a single felony count of solicitation of prostitution.
During that intense investigation, the state prosecutors extensively gathered and analyzed the evidence, met face-to-face with many of the asserted victims, considered their credibility -- or lack thereof -- and considered the extent of exculpatory evidence. Then, after months of elaborate negotiations, the state prosecutors believed they had reached a reasoned resolution of the matter that vindicated the public interest -- a resolution entirely consistent with that of cases involving other similarly-situated defendants.
Then, in came the feds. The United States Attorney's Office tried, to no avail, to fit Mr. Epstein's situation into its vision of what it viewed as a commercial trafficking ring targeting minors. This was anything but. At long last, the federal authorities acknowledged that stark reality and grudgingly agreed to defer prosecution to the state. But there was a huge catch. In the face of our arguments sharply condemning their overreach, the federal prosecutors insisted on many unorthodox requirements that tugged at fundamental values of due process. For example, the agreement required Mr. Epstein to pay an undisclosed list of asserted victims $150,000 each. Even more, the feds insisted that Jeffrey pay for an attorney to represent such unidentified victims if any chose to filed civil litigation against him. When asked what possible legal authority supported this extravagant exercise of national power, the feds lamely cited a wildly inapposite case from Alaska involving cocaine and forced on-the-street prostitution. Apples and oranges.
Under the federally-forced deal, Jeffrey was sentenced to jail. That would not have been the case under the agreed-upon state disposition of this non-violent, consensual commercial arrangement. Jeffrey complied, served that sentence, and in the process was treated exactly the same as other state-incarcerated
individuals. His conduct was exemplary, and so characterized by the state custodial authorities. He continued his work, including his many philanthropic efforts.
Our friend Jeffrey Epstein has paid his debt to society. He has also paid out millions of dollars to the asserted victims and their highly-creative lawyers. For over ten years, he has lived an exemplary life, including carrying on his wide-ranging philanthropies. Those of us who represented him in the Florida proceedings -- for customary professional fees -- now count him as a trusted friend.
Our nation faces vitally important challenges, many involving the treatment of women and basic human dignity. Voices are rightly being raised speaking truth to power, especially about women in the
workplace. But Jeffrey, an exemplary employer, has long since been called to account by the criminal justice system for his misdeeds of yesteryear. In the spirit of the bedrock American belief in second chances, that unhappy chapter in Jeffrey's otherwise-magnificent life should be allowed to close once and for all.
On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:24 PM J <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: ken ,would take a stab at the article for the law journal. ? thx
please note The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of JEE Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_030256