Epstein Secrets

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical worth used in different parts of the same act are in

at she did not want to return. Because no calls went directly from Epstein or his employees to Jane Doe #9, the exact dates of contact are unknown. JD#9 says that she believes the events occurred around her birthday and there is phone traffic between JD#9 and her recruiter in February, March, and Apr

her sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc., 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are int

at she did not want to return. Because no calls went directly from Epstein or his employees to Jane Doe #9, the exact dates of contact are unknown. JD#9 says that she believes the events occurred around her birthday and there is phone traffic between JD#9 and her recruiter in February, March, and Ap

ther sections of the Mann Act shows that Congress likewise did not intend to require proof of knowledge of age to violate those sections either. See Gustafson v. Alloyd Co., Inc. , 513 U.S. 561, 570 (1995) (noting the "normal rule of statutory construction" that "identical words used in different parts of the same act are in

most. She estimates that she saw him hundreds of times. There area proximately 220 calls between Jane Doe #9 and , 4 calls with , and 3 calls with JD#9 reported that approached her one summer when she was working at the Wellington Mall. JD#9 said that she thought she was 16 or 17 years' old at the