EFTA00224129.pdf

LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEFCOURT, P.C. • PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION I AS EAST 7S" STREET NEW YORE. NEW YORK WOE IL TELEPHONE GERALD G. LEFCOURT '212)737-0400 leicouleNtwurtlarzwn FACSIMILE 12i P) 9/313-SI92 SHERYL E. REICH fOCROIRICOURRIP.COM RENATO C. STABILE SiblOSWCOURISW.0:en FAITH A. FRIEDMAN ffriedinarylletcouttlaNcom July 25, 2007 BY HAND Matthew Menchel, Esq. Chief of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida 99 NE 41' Street Miami, Florida 33132 Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Menchel: We have previously provided you with a memo as to why we believe no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) could or should be brought against Jeffrey Epstein, even assuming the specific conduct that you have alleged actually occurred. In that memo, we detailed Congress's intent in enacting this statute. We also posited that the language of the statute would have to be stretched beyond recognition to fit the particular facts of Mr. Epstein's case.t Enclosed is data that strongly supports the arguments we previously made. We have thoroughly analyzed every prosecution brought under the statute for which data could be obtained. Based on that analysis, we submit that the prosecutions actually brought under the statute overwhelmingly confirm the limits to prosecution we have previously identified.2 I For several months, we have also been consulting on this matter with Stephanie Thacker, former Principal Deputy Chief, Department of Justice, Child Exploitation & Obscenity Section. Ms. Thacker supports our position without reservation that this is not a matter upon which the federal statues should be brought to bear. Ms. Thacker would also welcome any questions or concerns you would like to raise with her. 2 Please note that the enclosed chart amends the one provided to you earlier this week by adding additional details recently located. Exhibit 35 EFTA00224129 -1.4-\./ 25,2cc>7 Licouri w Derslimgeta It Ptertinti EFTA00224130  LAW OFFICES OF GERALD B. LEZCOURT, PC. Matthew Menchel, Esq. Chief of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 2 For example, of the 184 prosecutions in which at least one count alleges a violation of §2422(b), in the overwhelming majority of those cases — 160, or over 85% — the "means" of interstate communication was the Internet and involved the classic "Internet trolling" — far different from the behavior alleged here. Of that subset, the vast majority 113 -- were "sting" operations involving "children" (actually, agents) said to be between 2 and 14 years of age. The government in each of those instances took every precaution to verify that the defendant's actions were undertaken "knowingly". 'lb the extent we can determine the facts, it appears that prior to a case being brought, in each instance multiple explicit (and recorded) conversations were had, so there could be no question as to when the inducement was attempted, whether the inducement was of explicit unlawful sexual activity, or what the defendant's belief was as to the age of the victim. Again, this has no applicability to the facts alleged here. The data is informative in other ways, as well. Though there are a handful of cases in which the telephone is one of a multiple of means of interstate communications allegedly used, in only two such cases, both far different from the facts here,3 was the use of the telephone the sole means of the wrongdoing alleged. In the remaining telephone cases, the §2422(b) count is only one of several amongst various charges of possession of child pornography, violence, and the like. The data from the chart also establish that in the vast majority of the cases brought, no sexual activity was actually consummated. That confirms that prosecutions under §2422(b) are focused on protecting the federal interest in preventing the means of interstate communication from being used to commit crimes, particularly with respect to activities that arc traditionally difficult for the state to prosecute. A prosecution predicated on an incidental telephone call used as a "hook" to trigger federal jurisdiction in order to punish a defendant for the underlying sexual activity is well out of, not only the mainstream of §2422(b) prosecutions, but all §2422(b) cases that have ever been brought. Here, the state is fully able to prosecute the conduct alleged. We understand that the government believes it possesses proof that on various occasions telephone calls were allegedly made on Mr. Epstein's behalf by other persons who allegedly 3 As detailed in the introductory section to the chart, among the differences arc that those cases involve pimps who conceded that their businesses hinged on the use of telephones. Moreover, it is unequivocal that the arrangements being made are for sexual activity with underage women. EFTA00224131  USN OFFICES or GERAL.D B. LEFCO1URT, PC. Matthew Menchel, Esq. Chief of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 3 spoke directly or indirectly to women who were under 18. As the message books taken (unlawfully, in our view) during the search of Mr. Epstein's home clearly show, many women initiated the interactions by repeatedly calling to schedule massages. If the calls on which the government might seek to rely were merely "return" calls, certainly any alleged "inducement" would be far from unambiguous. And of course, the woman who called would have to have been known by Mr. Epstein to be under 18, and further, Mr. Epstein would have to have known and intended that a specific sexual activity unlawful under Florida law was being induced. Thus, contrary to there being unambiguous proof of the required elements of a §2422(b) violation in this case, at least the following defects exist: First, it is hardly the case that every massage resulted in sexual activity. Thus, merely because there was a telephone call, even one that might have "induced" a massage (which we dispute), such telephone call is not tantamount to the use of a telephone in violation of the statute. Second, even where a particular massage involved masturbation by Mr. Epstein or the touching of a woman, we dispute that any such conduct is a violation of any applicable Florida law. We assume you are focused on the evidence which reflects the sworn statement of, for example, Haley Robson, who told state investigators that she was asked to find women between 18 and 20 who would provide Mr. Epstein with topless massages and which sometimes involved their being touched. Fla. Stat. Ann. §796.07, a general statute which proscribes "prostitution" and "lewdness", regardless of whether an adult or minor is involved, is of very limited applicability here. That statute's definition of "prostitution" excludes conduct of which there may be evidence, specifically, a man masturbating himself while touching the breasts of another. Section 796.07(I)(a) defines "prostitution" as the giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire. "Sexual activity" is defined to include "the handling or fondling of the sexual organ of another for the purpose of masturbation". Thus, "sexual activity" appears to cover situations where a woman is paid to masturbate a man but excludes the situation where the man masturbates himself in the presence of a woman. Any other reading of this statutory language would raise constitutional problems of fair warning, vagueness and lenity. EFTA00224132  LAW OrrICCIS or GERALD B. LICFCOURT. P.C. Matthew Menchel, Esq. Chief of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 4 We are, of course, mindful of the fact that, unbeknownst to Mr. Epstein, some of the women were in fact not yet 18. It is certainly not clear that any state statutes were violated by Mr. Epstein's conduct with any of these women, either. Florida law criminalizes relatively little sexual activity with persons between the ages of 16 and 18. For example, it is not a violation of the laws regulating sexual activity to receive a massage from a person between 16 and 18 who is topless or even naked. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §800.04 (lewd and lascivious conduct with a child between the age of 16 and 18). Nor does that statute make it a crime to touch the breasts or other private areas of someone between 16 and 18. Id. And, of course, even if a state crime was committed, which we surely do not concede, that does not make out a federal crime, unless it could be proven that the defendant knowingly induced an illegal act over the telephone. Moreover, at best, thc proof would show that only a small minority of massages resulted in what may possibly be characterized as sexual activity with a woman under the age of 18. But even where a massage involved sexual activity with a woman under 18, to the extent Mr. Epstein did not know the woman was under 18, or the telephone call did not induce the activity, or Mr. Epstein did not intend the sexual activity at the time the telephone call arranging the massage, or the person arranging the massage did not intend the sexual activity, there would be multiple additional barriers to a successful prosecution. Further, putting aside whether there is sufficient proof that Mr. Epstein knew (and not merely that he "should have" surmised) that any of the women were in fact under IS, the set of facts hypothesized above has never before provided a legally sufficient predicate for a prosecution under §2422(b) - or under any other federal statute. 'Me enclosed chart clearly and compellingly demonstrates that every charge brought alleging a violation of §2422(b) is characterized by direct (not circumstantial and certainly not speculative) evidence of the defendant himself (not others on his behalf) using the means of interstate communication to communicate an unambiguous inducement to a person known to be underage or in the case of a sting, represented to be underage (or a person thought to be acting on behalf of such person) during the very communication that constitutes the required basis for federal jurisdiction. EFTA00224133  LAW OFFiCES or GERALD B. LEFCOTJET, PC Matthew Menchel, Esq. Chief of the Criminal Division The United States Attorney's Office Southern District of Florida July 25, 2007 Page 5 To our knowledge, the current investigation lacks any direct (or even circumstantial) proof that an inducement was made by Mr. Epstein during the pivotal communication that is at the very heart of any potential §2422(b) charge. Even if the government contends that Mr. Epstein induced unlawful sexual activity at some point, face to face, after a telephone call, the separation of the communication and the inducement takes Mr. Epstein's alleged misconduct outside the ambit of federal prosecution. It would be unprecedented (and unprincipled), as the chart demonstrates, to prosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) absent proof beyond a reasonable doubt both that he knew the age of the person and that he intended in that communication to induce sexual activity that is unlawful under Florida law. It would also be unprecedented to prosecute Mr. Epstein under §2422(b) based on a telephone call made by a third party without direct proof that Mr. Epstein intended that telephone call to induce unlawful sexual activity. For all of these reasons, as well as those asserted at the meeting of June 26 and in our follow up letter dated July 6, 2007, as well as our earlier letter of June 25, we submit that no charge under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) can be brought. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, we are available. Very truly yours, cbe•in.__2 . AOL,44-2_, Alan M. Dershowitz cc: Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. EFTA00224134  JEFFREY EPSTEIN 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) CASE ANALYSIS CHART A nationwide search of all cases listing charges under 18 U.S.C. §2422(b) underscores the undeniable fact that this statutory provision has been used almost exclusively to apply to situations involving Internet "trolling" by sexual predators. Out of a total of 184 cases listed in the chart below, the overwhelming majority — 160 cases — involves communications using the Internet. Of those cases, 113 involve the classic "Internet Sting" operations where either the government or a private organization has focused its investigative efforts on the use of the Internet to lure infants and minors, 2-14 years-old. Of those 113 cases, 76 involve the use of Internet chat rooms. As the chart reflects, the circumstances under which this statute has been applied invariably involve communications containing an explicit inducement — if not many — to the minor to engage in sex, and reflect the defendant's clear knowledge of the age of the minor. Notably out of the184 cases, two of the three cases in which the telephone served as the sole facility of interstate commerce involve charges against pimps of prostitution rings. Both of those cases involve the pimps' use of the telephone to arrange appointments for prostitutes to further their business ventures. In addition both of those cases include violence, distribution of rircotics, use of force and possession of firearms and the like. ns, 476 F.3d 1176 (11th Cir. 2007); US. Phillips, 165 Fed. Appx. 677 (10th Cir. 2006). The only o er instance where the telephone provided the sole basis for a charge under 2422(b) presented a situation where the enticement/inducement of known underage girls for sexual activity was explicitly made over the telephone. Lastly, the telephone and not the Internet served as the "facility or instrument" of interstate commerce in 4 foreign travel sting operation cases geared towards "sex tourism". Several other cases involving pimps (3) failed to mention the facility used.' ' The 14 remaining cases involving charges under 2422(b) fail to provide any information as to the facts underlying the charges. EFTA00224135  It is also clear that in no case — other than U.S. 'Howard, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67214 (W.D.N.C. 2006) (co-conspirator pimps in prostitution ring) - was there a ccessful charge f conspiracy based on §2422(b). See, e.g., U.S. I Pisman, 443 F.3d 912 (7th Cir. 2006) (2423(b) conspiracy); U.S Pipkins, et al., 378 F.3d 1281 (11th Cir. 2004) (RICO conspiracy); U.S. ~ Hornaday, 392 F.3d 1306 (1 1 `11 Cir. 2004) (conspiracy charge was error); U.S. I. Jackson, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 336 9 (D. Neb. 2007) (state conspiracy charge dropped because no conspiracy possible with undercover agent); US. . Bianchi, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90073 (E.D. Pa. 2006) (2423(e) conspiracy). .......... COURT CASES ikcnIrM FACTS/COMMUNICATION CIXRGEAlli 1" Cir. U.S. I Dewire, Internet AOL instant message (IM) 2422(b) 271 F.3d 333 (1" Cir. communication with "12 yr-old"; 2001) sexually explicit conversation, at the end Not Consummated of which defendant arranged to meet "12 yr-old" at a restaurant. In reality Showed up for meeting communications were with an adult swim team coach who had been using the girl's computer; coach turned print out of conversation over to police who observed defendant entering and leaving the restaurant and arrested him. Sentence 13 months; appealed conviction & sentence. Affirmed. 2 EFTA00224136 COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE T U.S. I Gravenhorst, Unpublished Internet Use of email by 45 yr-old male to 2422(b); 2006 U.S. App. LEXIS proposition 4 16 yr-old girls & one under 1470; 32373 (1st Cir. 2006); 16 yrs-old to engage in sex with him; 1462 vacating defendant pretended to be 19 yr-old and 377 F.3d 49 (1sT Cir. 2004) sent numerous graphic emails asking minors for sex; also sent sexually- No Information charged images to them — including couple engaging in sex and an erect penis. Sentence vacated in light of Booker. 2" Cir. U.S. I Miller, Pimp/ Gang members; pimp recruited underage 2422(b); 148 F.3d 207 (led Cir. Prostitution girls for prostitution and traveled 2423(b) 1998) interstate with them. No Information 3 EFTA00224137  CAS FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE US. I Friedman, I [published Internet Email communications with actual 14 yr- 2422(b); 139 Fed. Appx. 330 (2nd old; defendant arranged to meet and 2423(b) Cir. 2005) actually met 14 yr-old girl and engaged in "sexual touching"; interrupted by security guard at mall; bus reflected Consummated defendant's intention upon meeting 14 yr old to present himself in an aroused state; defendant found with condoms in his car; & when arrested photos were found on his digital camera, one of which he had sent to the 14 yr-old via email. Conviction affirmed but 81 month sentence vacated to be reconsidered in light of Booker. 4 EFTA00224138  COURT CASES FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION . CHARGE .-40.:. L.S. v. Weisser, Internet AOL IM chats (over 6) between 45 yr- 2422(b); 417 F.3d 336 (2ed Cir. Mpg old male from San Francisco and "11 yr- 2423(b); 2005) old male' in NYC; discussed in graphic 2252A(a)(1) language the kinds of previous sexual activity he had engaged in with other Not Consummated minor males and those he planned to engage in with the "11 yr-old"; defendant arranged to meet the "boy" at Showed up at meeting a hotel in NYC; talked on the telephone twice (calls recorded); requested photos to verify age; made detailed plan for "11 yr-old" to skip school and stay with him at hotel in NYC; defendant sent "11 yr- old" his flight and hotel information and waited for "boy" in hotel room where arrested; police found defendant with sexual paraphernalia and CD in computer containing child porn which had been created from images downloaded from defendant's computer. 210 month sentence remanded to be reconsidered in light of U.S v. Crosby, 397 F.3d 103 (2d Cir. 2005). 5 EFTA00224139 a SES l npublislted FACILITY Internet FACTS/COMMUNICATION Defendant drove 170 miles to engage in CHARGaE 2422(b); . U.S. I Minnici, 128 Fed. Appx. 827 (2nd Sting sexual activities with "13 yr-old" after 2423(b) Cir. 2005) engaging in IM chats, and telephone conversations. Defendant found to be in Not possession of graphic photographs. Consummated Defendant also engaged in IM chats with "14 yr-old" during which he expressed desire to travel to meet her; also other IM chats where defendant described "coaching' high-school girls in sexual terms; photo of grown man masturbating in front of a 2 yr-old. "Addictive" nature of Internet communications with minor warranted pre-trial detention and revocation of bond. 6 EFTA00224140 : :COURT CASES .st. FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE L.S. I Brand, Internet Internet chat room; civilian posing as 14/r2;); 24 467 F.3d 179 (2od Cir. Sting "13 yr-old girl" in "I Love Older Men" 2423(b) 2006) chat room; defendant proposed they meet and he "hug" her and they could fool Not Consummated. around and "do it all"; offered to "teach her" how to have sex and "how to be a Showed up at meeting woman"; civilian turned chats over to police; defendant used the telephone to plan and arrange to meet for sex; arrested when he showed up. Police found child porn on his computer and condoms in his car. U.S. I Johnson. Internet Internet contact with 3 separate minor 2422(b); 221 F.3d 83 (2°‘ Cir. 2000) girls and traveled to engage in illegal 2423(6); sexual conduct; traveled from MA to 2252(aX1) & (a)(4XB) NY; VA to MD; & VA to MI to meet 13 yr-olds & have sex; and convinced minor Consummated to travel from MD to VA to have oral sex with him; all through the Internet. Pled guilty — 88 month sentence Affirmed. 7 EFTA00224141 COURT •ark i-CASllit FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE 3r° Cir. U.S. I Lee, Internet Internet chat room 2252A(a)(I) & (b)(1); 315 F.3d 206 (34 Cir. "GirlsandOlderGuys"; 30 yr-old (aX5)(B) & (bX2); 2003) contacted minor in chat room; met actual 2423(b); 15 yr-old in chat room; arranged to have 2422(b) her travel to meet him; they met and engaged in sexual acts. Also attempted Consummated to meet other minors online to engage in sexual activity; transmitted child pom online. Pled guilty to 2252A and 2422(b) and sentenced to 57 months; appealed sentence requiring supervised release condition requiring random polygraph testing. Affirmed. U.S. I Hlavac, Slip Copy Internet Defendant responded to Internet 2422(b); Slip Copy, 2006 WL Not for propositions made by mother of a 2 yr- 2423(b); 3368897 (3i° Cir. 2006) Publication old offering her for sex; arranged for the 2252(aX2); sexual encounter with the infant online. 2252(aX4)(B): When arrested police found child porn 2253 on his computer including descriptions ofhis fantasies of engaging in sex with Consummated the mother and infant. Appealed 240 month sentence. Affirmed. 8 EFTA00224142  FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE !Ii, COURT , . CASES U.S. I. Awwad, I' npublished Internet Case involved typical intemet sting 2422(b); 184 Fed. Appx. 201 (3's Sin operation. No specific facts available. 2423(b) Cir. 2006) Not Consummated Slip Copy Internet 56 yr-old male met 14 yr-old on 2422(b); U.S.' Garcia, Internet; traveled to meet her for sex 2423(b) Slip Copy, 2007 WL 986874 (ant Cir. 2007); Not for and had sex with her. Publication Consummated see also U.S I Garcia, 2005 WL 1862409 (M.D. Pled guilty but appealed 100 month, 5yr Pa. 2005XUnpublished) supervision & fines. Affirmed. infra 9 EFTA00224143  COURT CASES FACILITY 1 FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE U.S. v. Iyharshy, Internet Internet chat room "Iloveoldennen2"; 2422(b); 446 F.3d 458 (3' Cir. Sting defendant initiated IM chat with "14 yr- 2423(b) 2006) old"; indicated interest in having sex with her, contacted the "14 yr-old" on at Not Consummated least 8 different dates & described in explicit detail sexual acts he hoped to 'towed up at meeting perform with her; asked "14 yr-old" for photo; during Internet chat defendant arranged to meet "14 yr-old" at a hotel and described sexual acts he intended to engage in with her; defendant showed up at hotel and arrested. Actual minor not required; maximum sentencing provided by PROTECT Act remanded because conduct occurred before effective date of the Act (April 30, 2003). 10 EFTA00224144 COURT • 'a CASES . FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE -ya./.1.4.,, .......,:::..c•4-,•- 414 Or' Slip Copy Internet Internet communications by 54 yr-old 2422(b); U.S. I Kaye Not for Ida& male with "13 yr-old male"; defendant 2423(b) Slip Copy, 432007 WL Publication by private told "13 yr-old" he was "prowling for 1978226 (4th Cir. 2007) organization young men" on the Internet; defendant emailed explicit photos of himself naked Not Consummated and having oral sex with another male; defendant engaged in several sexually explicit chats with "14 yr-old"; arranged to meet "14 yr-old" for sex; when defendant arrived he was met by "Dateline" crew instead. Conviction & sentence affirmed US. Bray, Unpublished No No information available. Indictment not 2422(b); Information accessible; media information. 21 USC 841 133 Fed. Appx. 80 (4th Cir. 2005) Challenge to sentence of 168 and 180 (marijuana possession ) months for 2 counts of 2422(b) conviction and 60 month conviction for marijuana possession — all but 24 No Information months to be concurrent or alternative sentence of 204 months - court affirmed sentence. US.' Taylor, Slip Copy No No information available. Indictment 2422(b); Information not accessible; no media information. 2423(b) 6 Fed. Appx. 174 (41° Cir. 2001) Not for Appealed 71 month sentence. Affirmed. Publication No Information I1 EFTA00224145  FACILITY: FACTS/COMMUNICATION 1., CHARGE 0 — - eame.4 avasir - ,., 'an 51° Cir. U.S. I Cherian, Unpublished Internet Internet chat room "Morn and Daughter 2422(b); 58 Fed. Appx. 596 (5th Cir. Stine Sex"; defendant initiated conversations 2423(b) 2003) with "mother of 13 yr-old"; over 13 months communicated with her relating sexually explicit details of sex Not Consummated experiences and preferences with the "13 yr-old"; arranged to meet "13 yr-old" for sex and arrested when he showed up. Showed up for meeting Conviction affirmed. U.S. I Berger, Unpublished No No information available. Indictment not 2422(b) 119 Fed. Appx. 658 (5th Information accessible. Cir. 2005) Pled guilty to 2422(b); appealed plea and No Information sentence. Appeal dismissed. U.S. I LaTorre. Unpublished No No information available. Indictment not 2422(b); 61 Fed. Appx 557 (5th Cir. Information accessible; no media information. 2423(b) 2003) Sentence restriction that prohibits defendant from "visiting any areas near schools, day-care centers..." after release No Information from 105 months imprisonment affirmed. 12 EFTA00224146 COURT CASES FACILITYJFACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE _ / 5. I Armendariz, Internet Internet chat room"Lil Boys for Older 2422(b) Stine Men"; 38 yr-old man entered & 45 I l'.3d 352 (56 Cir. contacted minor "boy' through chat 2006) room describing sexual encounters he would like to have with the "boy"; Not Consummated claimed he would like to teach the "boy" how to perform sexually; later used phone to continue contact and arranged to meet for sex; arrested when he showed up for the meeting. Computer analysis Showed up for meeting showed that he had corresponded with at least 4-5 other actual minor males but had never attempted to have sex with them. Government contested failure to require supervision upon release after 60 month sentence; sentence vacated and remanded because court did not consider the guidelines in not requiring post release supervision. 13 EFTA00224147 COURT CASES a FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE -7. U.S. I Wise, Internet Internet chat room; 38 yr-old from 2422(b); 447 F.3d 440 (5th Cir. Texas established Internet contact with 2423(b) 2006) 13 yr-old; defendant lied about his age because he knew 13 yr-old was not interested in sexual relationship with Consummated someone his age; IM chats and telephone conversations got more and more sexually explicit; defendant and 13 yr- old discussed sex acts they would perform together; defendant asked her to send explicit nude photos of herself; arranged to travel to meet for sex and recorded encounters; met on at least 3 separate occasions and performed sexual acts & took non-sexual & sexual photos. Contested 168 month sentence because of "grouping" in pre-sentence report. Affirmed. 14 EFTA00224148 COURT CASAMIllt_ FACILITY FACTS/COMMUNICATION CHARGE --4;4,144 -' 61h Or. U.S. I Smith, Unpublished Internet Internet and telephone communications 2422(b); 20 Fed. Appx. 412 (6th Cir. between 42 yr-old and 16 yr-old girl; the 2423(b); 2001) two met and had sexual relations; when the 16 yr-old tried to end the 2252 relationship, the defendant threatened and physically abused her; police engage in undercover investigation. Consummated Challenged use of prior felony convictions to enhance sentencing to 150 months. Affirmed. U.S. I First, Slip Copy Internet Internet communications between 2422(6); Sting defendant and "mother of under age 2423(6) Slip Copy, 2007 WL Not for girls"; defendant expressed interest in 1700818 (6th Cir. 2007) Publication 2241(c); having sex with "daughters"; arranged to meet; arrested when he showed up after 2241(c); attempting to escape and hit officer with III (assault of officer) his car.