024.pdf

Type

pdf

Source set

house-oversight-doj

Pages

9

Text status

Searchable text available

OCR confidence

0.9253396227238582

Original source

Extracted text

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page1of9 LAW OFFICE OF MARC FERNICH [email protected] 810 SEVENTH AVENUE, SUITE 620 ALSO ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 212-446-2346 FAX: 212-459-2299 www.fernichlaw.com July 16, 2019 BY ECF Hon. Richard M. Berman USDJ-SDNY 500 Pearl St. New York, NY 10007 Re: US v. Epstein, 19 CR 490 (SDNY) Dear Judge Berman: In response to requests from the Court and certain arguments made yesterday by the government, we write to supplement Jeffrey Epstein’s request for bail. First, make no mistake about the crux of the government’s detention argument and its necessary implications. Stripped to its core, the government’s position — as urged in its letters and echoed again yesterday — distills to this: the nominally rebuttable remand presumption (connected with 18 USC § 1591 charges)! plus Epstein’s ! To be clear, Epstein contends that § 1591 and the concomitant remand presumption do not contemplate or cover the core conduct at issue here: performing sexual DOJ-OGR-00000445 

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 24 Filed 07/16/19 Page 2of9 Hon. Richard M. Berman July 16, 2019 Page 2 wealth creates an irrebuttable presumption whereby no condition(s) can reasonably assure personal appearance or protect the public. The Court should reject the government’s misguided effort to effectively create a per se rule.2 Indeed, for the government, there’s literally nothing a person of Epstein’s means could say, do or pledge to rebut the operative presumption and make himself eligible for release. massages for money. See Fierro v. Taylor, No. 11-CV8573, 2012 WL 13042630, at *3 (SDNY July 2, 2012) (holding that purchasers of sex from minors fall outside § 1591’s ambit). 2 K.g., 7/15/19 Tr. 11 (“even if the defense were able at some point to rebut the presumption by providing some more information, there simply is no way that they can meet the standard here”); 7/12/19 Ltr. 5 (“even assuming the defendant’s assets are presently in the…

Open in the interactive archive →