DOJ-OGR-00000331.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB Document 11 Filed 07/12/19 Page 3 of 14

Honorable Richard M. Berman
United States District Judge
July 12, 2019
Page 3

The defendant, through counsel, continues to evidence a complete lack of appreciation for the gravity of the offenses with which he is charged.¹ As an initial matter, there can be no plausible suggestion that the allegations against the defendant involve isolated or aberrational conduct; they involve repeated, regular acts of sexual abuse committed over a period of many years. And following the defendant’s prior conviction, as described previously by the Government, the defendant continued to maintain at least hundreds and possibly thousands of nude photos of young subjects. The defendant’s victims in this case, often particularly vulnerable girls, were as young as 14 years old when he abused them. The defendant knew he was abusing minors, including because victims told him directly they were underage. And he preyed on his victims habitually and repeatedly—day after day, month after month, year after year.

The defense calls these disturbing alleged acts “simple prostitution.”² Mag. Tr. 12:12; see also D. Tr. at 6:15-19 (“This is basically the Feds today . . . redoing the same conduct that was investigated 10 years ago and calling it, instead of prostitution, calling it sex trafficking”). That characterization is not only offensive but also utterly irrelevant given that federal law does not recognize the concept of a child prostitute—there are only trafficking victims—because a child cannot legally consent to being exploited. Defense counsel’s repeated assertion that the Government’s case is infirm because no threats or coercion are alleged—e.g., Mag. Tr. at 12 (“There was no coercion. There were no threats. There was no violence.”), 17 (“there was no coercion. There was no intimidation. There is no deception.”); Release Motion at 2 (“There are no allegations . . . that he forced, coerced, defrauded, or enslaved anybody . . . .”)—is equally irrelevant because the offense with which the defendant has been charged requires no such proof. See, e.g., United States v. Ajfare, 632 F. App’x 272, 278 (6th Cir. 2016) (“We hold that § 1591(a) criminalizes the sex trafficking of children (less than 18 years old) with or without any force, fraud, or coercion, and it also criminalizes the sex trafficking of adults (18 or older), but only if done by force, fraud, or coercion.”).

Far more important, the defense has already effectively conceded that the Government will be able to present evidence of the actual primary elements of the charged offense—i.e., that the defendant engaged in sex acts for money with girls he knew were underage. See Release Motion at 2. On this record, the Government agrees with Pretrial Services that the defendant should be detained pending trial. He poses a tremendous risk of flight and a danger to the community, and he cannot overcome the statutory presumption in favor of detention in this case.

¹ Such arguments are unsurprising from a defendant who previously compared himself to a “person who steals a bagel” or a tragic mythical figure. See, e.g., Amber Southerland, Billionaire Jeffrey Epstein: I’m a sex offender, not a predator, N.Y. Post (2011) (“‘I’m not a sexual predator, I’m an “offender,”’ the financier told The Post yesterday. ‘It’s the difference between a murderer and a person who steals a bagel.’”); Philip Weiss, The Fantasist, NY Magazine (2007) (“‘It’s the Icarus story, someone who flies too close to the sun,’ I said. ‘Did Icarus like massages?’ Epstein asked.”).

² “Mag. Tr.” refers to the transcript of the hearing before Magistrate Judge Pitman on July 8, 2019; “D. Tr.” refers to the transcript of the hearing before this Court on July 8, 2019.

DOJ-OGR-00000331