Epstein Secrets

ated her. JD#3 stated that she was usually contacted by MI, via her cellular phone, to set up appointments. would sometimes call from New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands stating, "we will be coming into town, can you work?" Sometimes would call when they already were in town EFTA00229882 asking if JD#3 was able t

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

w York to be considered a resident of New York for tax purposes. Since 1999, Mr. Epstein has qualified under the applicable test as a domiciliary of the Unitcd States Virgin Islands and is therefore entitled to the tax advantages being a domiciliary there affords. LAIALA kityls leas di'/ • ... ck9 Mr. Epstein stopped traveli

intervention a high priority. See, e.g., United States 'Clarke, 159 Fed. Appx. 128, 2005 WL 3438434 (It ch Cir. 2005)(unpublished); United States I Strevell, 185 Fed. Appx. 841, 2005 WL 1697529 (11th Cir. 2006)(unpublished), cert. denied, 127 U.S. 692 (2006). No such federal interest is implicated in th

system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts, 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (1 I th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell, 2006 WL 1697529, •3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (fmding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to ar

7. On August 25, 2004, Defendant to be made to a telephone used by Jane Doe #4. 42. On October 2, 2004, Defendants EPSTEIN, , and traveled from the U.S. Virgin Islands to Palm Beach County, Florida aboard the Boeing 727 aircraft owned by Defendant JEGE, INC. caused one or more telephone calls to caused one or mor

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ated her. JD#15 stated that she was usually contacted by M, via her cellular phone, to set up appointments. would sometimes call from New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands stating, "we will be coming into town, can you work?" Sometimes would call when the already were in town asking if JD#15 was able to work the same

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ated her. JD#14 stated that she was usually contacted by M, via her cellular phone, to set up appointments. would sometimes call from New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands stating, "we will be coming into town, can you work?" Sometimes would call when the already were in town asking if JD#14 was able to work the same

ne system was a facility of interstate commerce." United States v. Roberts , 2006 WL 827293 n.1 (11th Cir. Mar. 30, 2006). See also United States v. Strevell , 2006 WL 1697529, *3 (11th Cir. June 20, 2006) (finding that a defendant's placing of "numerous phone calls from Philadelphia to Miami in order to

ated her. JD#3 stated that she was usually contacted by MI, via her cellular phone, to set up appointments. would sometimes call from New York or the U.S. Virgin Islands stating, "we will be coming into town, can you work?" Sometimes would call when the already were in town asking if JD#3 was able to work the same