Epstein Secrets

they strongly corroborate Spurlock's criminal intent to entice the girls. See United States v. Jonsson, 15 F.3d 759, 761 (8th Cir.1994). We join the Eleventh Circuit in noting that 2. Spurlock's claim that his contact with "Mary" did not constitute statutory rape or statutory sodomy under Missouri law is be- si

ad, Jr., Fed. Public Defend- er, on the brief), for appellant. Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kan- sas City, MO, argued (Bradley J. Schloz- man, U.S. Atty., Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before COLLOTON, BRIGHT, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. COLLOTON, Circuit Judg

d. Public Defender, Kansas City, MO, argued (Ray- mond C. Conrad, Jr., Fed. Public Defend- er, on the brief), for appellant. Philip M. Koppe, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kan- sas City, MO, argued (Bradley J. Schloz- man, U.S. Atty., Katharine Fincham, Asst. U.S. Atty., on the brief), for appellee. Before COLLOTON,

", to the extent discernable, every case brought under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the intemet. There are only four reported cases in the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex touriand involved expli

witz would write to tell the Justice Department that "Epstein never targeted minors." Letter from Gerald Lefcourt & Alan Dershowitz, July 6, 2007 to U.S. Atty.'s Office for the S.D. Fla (attached as Exhibit 30). Now, nearly a decade later, there should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the minor girls who

h Cir.1970), and more • nay by the Fourth Circuit, Air Transit NLRB, 879 F2d 1101 (4th Cir.1982), Board sought to impose the same infes- tation on the Eleventh Circuit. The effort is to no avail. [24] We hold that the daily lessees are independent contractors and not employees of the Company and contrary findin

o, Miami, Fla, for plaintiffs-appel- lants. Richard Essen, Essen & Essen, P.A., North Miami Beach, Fla., for William Fa- loon. Dexter W. Lebtinen, U.S. Atty., Miami, Fla., Barbara K. Bisno, Ant. U.S. Atty., Deborah S. Smolover, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Jacqueline H. Eagle, Office of Consumer Litigation,

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One District Court within the Eleventh Circuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirlind a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." Do

. Hyde and Richard A. Russell of Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A., Miami, for appellee. Barry M. Hartman, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., and Susan Hill Ponzoli, Asst. U.S. Any., Miami, Keith E. Saxe, David C. Shilton and Ellen J. Durkee, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for ami

njoin the stay. And we conclude that this provision does not violate separation of powers principles.") (emphasis added). One District Court within the Eleventh Circuit recently construed "the plain language of § 3509(k)" as "requirfing/ a stay in a case . . . where . . . a parallel criminal action [is] pending." D

. Hyde and Richard A. Russell of Peeples, Earl & Blank, P.A., Miami, for appellee. Barry M. Hartman, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dexter W. Lchtinen, U.S. Atty., and Susan Hill Ponzoli, Asst. U.S. Atty., Miami, Keith E. Saxe, David C. Shilton and Ellen J. Durkee, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for am