DOJ-OGR-00030476.jpg

LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. Lercourt, P.G. A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION (48 EAST 78™ STREET NEW YORE, NEW YORK 10021 Sg STAR area Wes wee. GERALD 8, LEFCOURT 1 TELEPHONE lefcou courllaw.com (21z) 737-0400 FACSIMILE (212) 968-12 —— SHERYL E. REICH oom RENATO Cc. STABILE stabliaggiefcourtiaw.com FAITH A. FRIEDMAN June 5, 2006 firiedmen@efoourtiaw.com Pr sande sen eieuemeyaey RineaES me Sieapeey es BY HAND Lanna Belohlavek Florida State Attomey’s Office 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Ne EE I a te he ee Re: Jeffrey Epstein alae Ab Ae Stes ae Dear Ms, Belohlavek: As a follow up to our meeting of June 1, 2006, held in an attempt to resolve this matter, we write to address the following issues which have arisen: (1) the risk, were the client to plead to aggravated assault in Florida, that he might be subject to sex-offender registration statutes in other jurisdictions, now or in the future; (2) the nature of the charge of felony “aggravated assault with intent to commit a felony,” and how it does not reflect the allegations herein; and, (3) whether a felony conviction itself is justified based on the available evidence. At the outset of our June 1, 2006 meeting, we were mindful that an understanding had been reached with prior counsel. It was reached, however, with the clear and joint understanding that the client would not be subjected to sex offender registration requirements in any state or foreign jurisdiction, Moreover, the limited time provided did not allow for an opportunity to conduct an even cursory investigation or research into the ramifications. Were any charge to be brought, having now learned of the serious danger a plea to felony aggravated assault presents with regard to sex offender registration, coupled with the facts presented at our meeting and outlined below, we strongly believe that a plea to misdemeanor solicitation is the more appropriate resolution. As we discussed, this could include an agreed upon allocution, as we are mindful of your concern about labeling the girls “prostitutes.” In this regard, as we discussed, the Jaw and relevant statute are clear that the complaining witness need not be a “prostitute” in order to satisfy the elements of the offense. TE A OER ET ER C4 Se oe A AEN A Rh I A LE NT aa LA de Sa Sa op ether ne ee et es en nd gee I6Q8SEBT9S ‘ON XYs Page 9 of 131 Public dogs OqUMtN@00229s -NNL DOJ-OGR- 00030476