Epstein Secrets

ich friend was that? A. His name was Brian. TI don't know his last name. I really didn't know [Jand « didn't know her friends or whatever, but I met Jeffrey. And once I met Jeffrey, he was a very awesome guy and I just -- I don't know. <I ended up giving him my number so x could -- I didn't want J or Bria

time? A. Yes. Q. You would get $200 every time she came? A. Yes. Q. Good deal. Okay. What about EP A. EEE 10? Q. any i that you brought to Mr. Epstein’s house. Page 30 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012311 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ay oO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 mo AN OD uo S&F WwW KN 04-25 Po where did she go to

m. (Thereupon, the interview ended.) (Pages 10 to 13) 4 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012362 Page 12}: Page 13 02423 TAB 10 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012363 IN RE: JEFFREY EPSTEIN VZIDEOTAPED INTERVIEW as 060ml 02528 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012364 1 (Uhereupon, the following videotaped interview was 1 2 had:} : 2 4 BY DETECTIVE REC

GHT_012357 TAB 9 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012358 TN RF: JBPPREY EPSTEIN TAPED INTERVIEW OF P| DIRAF T 02420 HOUSE_OVE

bout EP A. EEE 10? Q. any i that you brought to Mr. Epstein’s house. Page 30 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_012311 19 20

rself. , 5) Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991): A unanimous Court ruled that the appointment of special trial judges by the Chief Judge of the United States Tax Court did not violate the Appointments Clause. Five Justices concluded that the Tax Court was a "Court of Law" for Appointments Clause purposes, despite th

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE, CONSENT TO DESIGNATION AND REQUEST TO ELECTRONICALLY RECEIVE NOTICES OF ELECTRONIC FILINGS In accorda

0591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARANCE, CONS

:09-CV-80591-KAM Jane Doe 101, Plaintiff, vs. Jeffrey Epstein, Defendant. MOTION FOR LIMITED APPEARAN

54 District of Columbia, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of Michigan, Eastern District of Wisconsin, and District of Colorado, and the United States Tax Court. 2. Movant, Robert D. Critton, Esquire, of the law firm of Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman, P.A. (515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beac

ays He Now Poses a Greater Threat Than in 2016 • Epstein Accuser Files Lawsuit Alleging Famed Psychiatrist

ties have finally begun naming his victims, with Jeffrey A. Jones, who disappeared in 1993, becoming the l

of the Treasury and Rose E. Jenkins of the District of Columbia Adam B. Landy of South Carolina and Kashi Way of Maryland each to be a Judge of the United States Tax Court. — 10:00 AM — Host: Finance Committee • Hearings to examine the nominations of Sherri Malloy Beatty-Arthur Rahkel Bouchet Erin Camille Johnston Ra

cision. I am pulling up the Tax Court decision and will let you know. Alan S. Halperin Partner Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2014 9:07 AM To: Halperin, Alan S Subject: Re: Elkins Case what was the discount???

ul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP From: Jeffrey E. [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesda

Leslie Keith Sasser ("Petitioners"). as Independent Executors of the Estate of their deceased father. James A. Elkins. Jr. ("Decedent"). petitioned the United States Tax Court ("Tax Court") to review and eventually eliminate the federal estate tax deficiency assessed against the Estate by Respondent-Appellee. the Commissio