Epstein Secrets

f 12 Seders/ Express Please Indicate any change In mailing address: ALCOun I Nun bee. 1144 2081 6 None: Address: ApIrluit• • car: sine: De: Horne Ahem dearness Phone ( I USDOJ_0011 3509-018 Page 15 of 57 SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER PARAGRAPHS 7, 8, 9, 10, 15, and 17 EFTA_00007064 EFTA00

From: abaS) To: Cc: Subject RE: Request for Tangible and Documentary Evidence (Touhy Request); Jane Doe v. Indyke et al., SONY Case No. 1:20-cy-004844GIODCF Date: Monday, August 3, 2020 11:51:20 PM Attachments: 20320 Letter re Realest for Informagm

0264456 2111122. 12:35 PM The Hon Julia Card AC University of Adelaide public lecture 2019 Visit the Coronavirus Mental Wellbeing Support Service Horne > Media > News & Hon Julia Ward AC University of Adelaide public lecture 2019 "TC: u t GCE 1 BOL-CKY1--AEI- -5-7 I DE- a_.a cc.,52 lc:ED s 9.ews

s v. United States (2014) 50' 43 e L ecsosE tRA1`19.... PROs-i NENS1 PCS a I ChX.3 A December 3o, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1 (Courtney Wild) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's NPA w

list Agency to Agency Requet 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331815 EFTA_00204541 EFTA02729526 aunt, of .Emote" Home inane Yak, Atamtni Of low *eh Rotes For Horne uha haVlahohea• u... Ow nnnnnnnnn Quotes Online aware auto Insurance quotes from top companies Coldwell flanker £g.nt Oglesby. Illinois Cokhne b

/JOHNSON Plaintiff Vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. C.M.A., Plaintiff, CASE NO.: 08-80811-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. JANE DOE, CASE NO.: 08- 80893-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN et al, 09/12/2019 2 CONFIal535ENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 S

mandatory ten-year minimum sentence. Indeed, given that the interstate highway system is itself an avenue of interstate commerce, United States v. Horne, 474 F.2d 1004, 1006 (7th Cir. 2007), allowing a prosecution wherever a means or facility of interstate commerce is used and a forbidden inducement

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage in Prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones

mandatory ten-year minimum sentence. Indeed, given that the interstate highway system is itself an avenue of interstate commerce, United States v. Horne, 474 F.2d 1004, 1006 (7°' Cir. 2007), allowing a prosecution wherever a means or facility of interstate commerce is used and a forbidden inducement

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doc to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones