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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma

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.

efendant would automatically rebut the presumption applicable to crimes such as sex trafficking. That is manifestly incorrect. See United States v. Artis, 607 F. App'x 95, 97 (2d Cir. 2015) (finding that a defendant's lack of criminal record was "not so compelling as to defeat the presumption or to ma