Epstein Secrets

aused one or more calls to be made to a telephone used by Jane Doe #1. # . On or about March 31, 2005, EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned b Defendant JEGE, INC. . On or about March 31, 2005, EPSTEIN and caused Jane Doe #1 to make a cal

activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha

ometimes brought his assistant/girlfriend, into the sexual activity. On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home

al activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States I. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove that

ometimes brought his assistant/girlfriend, into the sexual activity. On October 18, 2005, PBPD obtained a search warrant with the assistance of the Palm Beach County State Attorney's Office ("PBSAO"). By this time, PBSAO had already been contacted by Epstein's cadre of lawyers. When PBPD arrived at Epstein's home

ctivity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez, 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove that

activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha

lls to be made to a telephone used by Jane Doe #11. EFTA02857805 80. On January 6, 2005, Defendant EPSTEIN traveled from Teterboro, New Jersey to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Gulfstream aircraft ownec,,endant, HYPERION, AIR, INC. 105. On February 24, 2005, Defendants EPSTEIN, , and traveled from Tete

activity must have not been merely incidental to the trip. United States v. Hayward, 359 F.3d 631, 637-38 (3d Cir. 2004). See also United States v. Garcia-Lopez , 234 F.3d 217, 220 (5th Cir. 2000) (The district court did not err in instructing the jury that "it was sufficient for the Government to prove tha

more calls to 917-855-3363. # . On or about March 30, 2005, #1. #1. # . On or about March 31, 2005, EPSTEIN traveled from New York, New York to Palm Beach County, Florida, aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned b Defendant i JEGE, INC. . On or about March 31, 2005, EPSTEIN and caused Jane Doe #1 to place a