@epsteinpedia
CA:
AEb4NmMJF2x5kcp19M13RiXZuAGyajWSKLaioqBrpump
Document doj-ogr-00030476
AI Analysis
Summary: The letter, dated June 5, 2006, from Gerald B. Lefcourt to Lanna Belohlavek, discusses plea negotiation issues for Jeffrey Epstein, focusing on the implications of pleading to aggravated assault versus misdemeanor solicitation, and the concern about sex offender registration in various jurisdictions.
Significance: This document is potentially important as it reveals the negotiation process and considerations involved in a high-profile case involving Jeffrey Epstein, highlighting concerns about sex offender registration and the nature of the charges.
Key Topics:
Plea negotiation for Jeffrey Epstein
Sex offender registration implications
Charge of felony aggravated assault vs. misdemeanor solicitation
Key People:
- Jeffrey Epstein - The client being represented by the law firm
- Gerald B. Lefcourt - Attorney representing Jeffrey Epstein
- Lanna Belohlavek - Florida State Attorney's Office, recipient of the letter
Full Text
LAW OFFICES OF
Gerald B. Lefcourt, P.C.
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
148 EAST 78TH STREET
NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10021
GERALD B. LEFCOURT
lefcourt@lefcourtlaw.com
SHERYL E. REICH
reich@lefcourtlaw.com
RENATO C. STABILE
rstabile@lefcourtlaw.com
FAITH A. FRIEDMAN
ffriedman@lefcourtlaw.com
TELEPHONE
(212) 737-0400
FACSIMILE
(212) 968-6192
June 5, 2006
BY HAND
Lanna Belohlavek
Florida State Attorney's Office
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Re: Jeffrey Epstein
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 law and relevant statute are clear that the complaining witness need not be a "prostitute" in order to satisfy the elements of the offense.
Page 9 of 131