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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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