HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012191.jpg

Hr, ALLEN GUTHRIE MCHUGH & THOMAS, PLLC Mr. John Roth June 19, 2008 Page 9 A: Correct. Q: You didn’t want Mr. Epstein to know that you were not 18 yet, right? A: Correct. P (deposition) at 36. In fact, Ms. bold Mr. Epstein that she was 18 years old, and confirmed this fact with Palm Beach Police. Id. at 36. Beyond that, Ms. [EE “swore on her mother’s grave” that she and Mr. Epstein did not engage in sex of any kind. NM Tr. (deposition) at 24. She further repeatedly explained that prior to the time she went to Mr. Epstein’s house (she went there only once), nobody ever tried to coerce her to engage in sexual activity with Mr. Epstein. Not over the telephone, not over the Internet, not at all. {IT r. (deposition) at 31-32, These are not facts upon which a federal case can stand. Ms. [BBs age was also unknown to Mr. Epstein when she went to his home. | | | who was introduced to Mr. Epstein by Ms] testified in her federal sworn interview that Ms Bko1d her to lie to Epstein. Seeli- Tr. at 8 (“she just said make sure you’re 18 because Jeffrey doesn’t want any underage girls’’) (emphasis added). Ms. testimony strongly suggests that Ms. EMMicd to Mr. Epstein about her own age as well. Ms. also self represented that she worked at a local erotic massage parlor that presumably required a minimum age. The conduct of a i: likewise illustrative of “mutually corroborating” testimony which supports the fact that this is not an appropriate federal case. In the same way that Ms. HE as referred to Mr. Epstein and brought to his home without having been introduced or acquainted in any manner, Ms Mil@Mlwas referred by someone else, | who also told her to lie to Mr. Epstein about her age, which she did. a. at pp. 8-9). CEOS seeks to buttress the USAO prosecution by asserting “it is possible to satisfy that element [proof of specific intent as to the age of the alleged victims] with proof that the defendant was deliberately ignorant of facts which would suggest that the person was a minor.” (CEOS letter at p. 2). Such assertion is counter to the law and to the facts. Reliance on a deliberate ignorance standard as to any of the three statutes in issue requires the factual predicate of an intent not to learn of an incriminating fact. This is the antithesis of the factual context of this case where there is repeated proof that the minors believed that they had to lie because Mr. Epstein had an actual practice of attempting to verify age, and would not let them in his house if they were under the age of 18. See United States v. Kennard, 472 F.3d 851, 857-858 (11™ Cir. 2006), quoting, United States v. Puche, 350 F.3d 1137, 1149 (11™ Cir. 2003) (An instruction on deliberate ignorance is appropriate only if it is shown [among other things] . . . that the defendant purposely contrived to avoid learning HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012191