Epstein Secrets

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, 11 Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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

. July 2, 2012), relied heavily on the statutory interpretation undertaken by two district courts in the District of South Dakota, United States v. Bonestroo, No. 11 Cr. 40016, 2012 WL 13704 (D.S.D. Jan. 4, 2012), and United States v. Jungers, II Cr. 40018, 2011 WL 6046495 (D.S.D. Dec. 5, 2011), both of w

(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