EpsteinProject.org

Court records

022_35

Format
pdf
Set
Court Records
Text
Searchable

View at the original source

Text as released

Machine-read from the scan. Names, dates and numbers can be misread — check anything you rely on against the original page.

        Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB     Document 22      Filed 07/16/19    Page 1 of 9



                                    LAW OFFICE OF
                                   MARC FERNICH
 MARC FERNICH maf@fernichlaw.com                              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) 1 plus Mr.


1 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
      Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB        Document 22     Filed 07/16/19    Page 2 of 9




Hon. Richard M. Berman
July 16, 2019
Page 2

Epstein’s 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

r

[…]

Open in the archive