9
Shared Docs
9
Same-Page
9 / 9
Mentions
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
e leader of a sex-trafficking enterprise, not a mere consumer. This analysis similarly extends to a non-prosecution agreement. See United States v. Laskow, 688 F. Supp. 851, 854 (E.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Defendant's argument, in effect, is that unless there is an explicit statement to the contrary, it is pres
(Continued) of call in seconds, inbound or outbound calls and calls made to or from phone. On , 2006, at 11:03 am, made a call to the victim Illwhich 111111192 seconds (8 minutes and 2 seconds). The victim then returned the call at 11:16 am which lasted 6 seconds. The victim then made contact wit
Entities connected to both Laskow and Illwhich

Jeffrey Epstein
PERSONAnnabi
PERSON
Michael Jackson
PERSON
Prince Andrew
PERSON
Reid Weingarten
PERSON
Anderson
PERSON
United States
LOCATIONMartin Weinberg
PERSON
Department of Justice
ORGANIZATIONPrisco
PERSON
Southern District of New York
ORGANIZATIONthe Southern District
LOCATIONPitman
PERSON
Harry Reid
PERSONN.Y. Post
ORGANIZATION
Amber Southerland
PERSONCasteneda
PERSON
Icarus
PERSON
Richard M. Berman
PERSON
New York State
LOCATION