Truth Tide TV UNSEALED Epstein Case Files
menu
home Home analytics Reports article Articles auto_stories Narratives mail Email description Documents videocam Videos search Search
policy Investigate expand_more
inbox Inbox 74547 send Sent 28705 label All Mail 74547 attach_file Attachments 1907 topic Topics
People
Jeffrey Epstein person
Ghislaine Maxwell person
Bill Clinton person
Alan Dershowitz person
Elon Musk person
Bill Gates person
Ehud Barak person
Reid Hoffman person
Peter Thiel person
Larry Summers person
Prince Andrew person
Steve Bannon person
Masha Bucher person
Jason Calcanis
Michael Wolff person
Noam Chomsky person
Tom Pritzker person
Al Seckel person
Kimbal Musk person
Karyna Shuliak person
Deepak Chopra person
Ken Starr person
Peter Attia person
Jeremy Rubin person
Neri Oxman person
Marvin Minsky person
Lawrence Krauss person
Seth Lloyd person
Boris Nikolic person
Jean Luc Brunel person
Lesley Groff person
Sarah Kellen person
Nadia Marcinkova person
Darren Indyke person
Mark Epstein person
Emad Hanna person
Joscha Bach person
Rich Kahn person
Cecelia Steen
John Amerling person
Sultan Bin Sulayem person
Matthew Hitzik
Peter Mandelson person
groups People directory
74547 threads 209740 messages
Homechevron_right Emailchevron_right Fw: Fwd: Vicky Eiger memo
arrow_back

Fw: Fwd: Vicky Eiger memo

1 message picture_as_pdf Source PDF
J
J. Epstein Nov 10, 2006 4:39 AM
To
me


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: J. Epstein <jeeproject@yahoo.com>
To: Mitch Webber <mwebber@law.harvard.edu>
Cc: dersh@law.harvard.edu
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 11:38:23 PM
Subject: Re: Fwd: Vicky Eiger memo

 Some ramblings   ....A couple of missed points...  for 2422,,, there is case law on what it means to induce or coerce,, the judge said they have common sense meanings, I disagree with the mens rea of inducing being dispositive, as it would be clear that a person on the internet who simply sent a text message , that said I know you are thirteen years old , let's meet for  some sex act, would still be charged with enticement. , the risk is they say that HAley or others recruitng for money could be the inducement.. , it would make litle sense  however, for an interstate  call from a state where the age of consent is 16 to a state where the age of consent is16, and still be liable for a federal crime. WE need ot know if they've ever brought a case with 16 and 17 yearolds. ,as the mann  act and 2423 reference 109a. , there it is clear that the federal age is 16//..I agree that the legislative history and legislatvie intent needs reciting.. , the 2422 response should deal with Lily's portrayal.   .. Recall that the police report, has allegations of four illegal acts,(this might qualify as commercial sex act with a minor). in addition to the one time 14 year old.. who though she is the youngest, , as she was not known before she showed up at the house,, and didn't return,  unless they stretched it to find me a fourteen year old, on the phone, and haley went recruiting, and found one, , but that flies in the face of the girls own stateements that she said she was 18... , and for the federal crime mistake of age ,, is a defense... SO vicky is clear ,, the ages on the police report are the detectives guess as to their ages when he believes they were at the house.. . I agree with Mitch that  lily's and guys comments that they know of no similar case ever being brought , needs to be up front.  I realize that plea cases , would be more difficult to find,, but putting out a request on the the defense counsel blog might  be appropriate. . I would also stresss that plam beach is my home,, , from the phone records, Sarah would call many people and tell them we were coming,, rarely setting up an actual appointment until we were actually there, .. not only not knowing who would come to the house, but in addtion who the recipient of the massage would be.. keep in mind that nadia was only 20. , making even sex with her legal under florida law.. ,  Vicky can speak to me for more of the facts.., We should addresss the Alex Hall fabrications, as that is what the feds are looking at... She says she came to the house multiple times , and had both oral ad vaginal sex, with me, and I knew her age.. Seperate and apart from her total lack of credibility, I think we should craft our argument as if the fbi believes her.. .. No position of authority, no drugs, no legislative intent,, Sarah would have had to known about the sex, , I would have had to know that Sarah was going to use the telephone,, WE both would have had to be aware of her age. ., she brought her boyfrend to the house,, to accompany her.. , before we get into those arguments however, I think it is important that we stress that this was looked at by the state.. , and the federal interest in limited. . 

----- Original Message ----
From: Mitch Webber <mwebber@law.harvard.edu>
To: jeeproject@yahoo.com
Cc: dersh@law.harvard.edu
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2006 9:44:11 PM
Subject: Fwd: Vicky Eiger memo


Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2006 19:52:48 -0500
To: avid@mycingular.blackberry.net, dersh@law.harvard.edu
From: Mitch Webber <mwebber@law.harvard.edu>
Subject: Vicky Eiger memo
Bcc: mwebber@law.harvard.edu


Alan,

I just left you a voice message, but let me repeat what I said.  I think the memo is very strong and certainly worth sending around to the rest of the team.  I would prefer to see a change in emphasis, though.  I think the strongest argument is yours: the idea that charging Epstein would be an unprecedented and unnecessary extension of the statutory language.  By leading off with the straight legal argument and burying the Congressional intent and statutory history arguments at the end, I think we lost credibility.  Yes, I think there's a strong case to be made that Epstein didn't violate even the broadest interpretation of the statutes, but whether or not he did is arguable at the very least.  To pretend that Epstein has an unimpeachable, airtight legal defense is disingenuous.  It's not arguable, though, that no one who has behaved as benignly as Epstein has been charged.  Why should the feds pick Epstein to test the outer limits of the statute? 

Those arguments are all in there, but most don't appear until the latter third of the memo.

I just skimmed the Staples case.  There's obviously some good dicta about the rule of lenity and the presumptive preference for an implied mens rea requirement.  The Mann Act has an explicit mens rea requirement, and there are several cases cited in the memo that construe that requirement in Epstein's favor.  So even though it's not directly on point, I think Staples could be helpful down the line if we need to cull some strong language on the importance of crisply defined mens rea requirements.

Best,
Mitch




1419 files from the DOJ Epstein case media release. All files are public records from justice.gov.

Built by Truth Tide TV