Epstein Secrets

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

crime. See United States'. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (j1 di Cir. 2002); United States' Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 9a9 (10th Cir. 2005); United Stalest. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States'. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

t there, in facts far different from ose 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

the crime. See United States. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 122742 (11th Cir. 2002); United States' Suns, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10* Cir. 2005); United States' Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8* Cir. 2006); United States d Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9* Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected voi for vagueness, o

court in Doe'. Epstein, No. 9:08- cv-80I19-KAM (S.D. Fla.). Brunel's attorney asked counsel for Jane Doe to postpone the scheduled deposition date. Jane Doe's counsel agreed, and then Brunel's attorney cancelled the rescheduled deposition date. Brunel's counsel represented that Brunel was outside the count

me. See United States I Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States I Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 919 (10th Cir. 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

a telephone used by Jane Doe #2 to make an appointment for Jane Doe #2 to travel to (6) In or around 2002, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN paid $400 to Jane Doe #2, who was then fifteen years' old, to (7) In or around 2002, Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN asked Jane Doe #2 if she had any younger friends who woul

ee also United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227- 28 (I11° Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims. 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717- 20 (9th Cir. 2004). There arc approximately two dozen Eleventh Circuit case

k, New York) [2nd Circuit Opinion: 938 F.2d 1535 (2nd Cir. 1991)] Testified at deposition, 5/13/90 Testified in court (trial or hearing), 5/14/90 Jane Doe v. Stuart Brown. M.D. (San Diego, California) Testified by deposition, 6/6/90 Carin Evans vs. Richard Benton, Ph.D. (Houston, Texas) Testified at

ates (mother charged with drowning her five children) 2002-2004 Consultant to the United States Attorney's Office, Cedar Rapids, Iowa, in U.S. v. Helder (serial mailbox bombings in Nebraska, Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Iowa) 2003 Consultant to the Office of the District Attorney, Prince Willia

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

es1 Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 0th Cir. dealing with a minor was sufficient to make out the crime. See United States Root, 296 2005); United States I Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8Ih Or. 2006); United States I Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (0 Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, ove

s. To inform Jane Doe of dates that he had arranged, Evans called Jane Doe on a cellular telephone that she had acquired from him. Evans also gave Jane Doe's cellular telephone number to customers and told Jane Doe to arrange dates when customers called. During the dates, Ev- ans called Jane Doe on the

) engaged in conduct that constitutes a substantial step towa commission of the crime. See United States Farner. 251 F.3d 510, 513 (5th Cir.2001); Helder, 452 F.3d at 755. Whether Defendant had the requisite culpability for the underlying offense can be addressed by inquiring whether Defendant inte

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

rime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 122742 (11"' Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10* Cir. 2005); United States v. Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8* Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9'h Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

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

ime. See United States v. Root, 296 F.3d 1222, 1227-32 (11th Cir. 2002); United States v. Sims, 428 F.3d 945, 959 (10th Cir. 2005); United States x Helder, 452 F.3d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Meek, 366 F.3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void for vagueness,

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

thrrime. See nited States v. Root, 296 t3d 1222, 1227-32 ( 1°' Cir. 2002). United States Sims, 428 3d 945, 959 (10° Cir. 1 005); United States I Helder, 45213d 751 (8th Cir. 2006); United States !Meek, 366 3d 705, 717-20 (9th Cir. 2004). Likewise, the Circuits have rejected void or vagueness, overb