Epstein Secrets

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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

MENT ime: 15:01:37 Page: 82 Incident Report Program: CMS301L 1************************NARRATIVE # 42 ********* ***************** Reported By: RECARSY, JOSEPH 4/14/06 Entered By.: ALTOMARO, NICKIE A. 4/18/06 The Grand Jury Subpoenas were personally served to the individuals they were issued to.

. 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