Epstein Secrets

A NEYRA JACKIE PERCZEK MARK A.J. SHAPIRO JARED LOPEZ BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF =PA.= Dece

to a telephone used by Jane Doe #10. 17 EFTA00225823 (58) On or about July 16, 2004, Defendant placed a telephone call to a telephone used by T.M. (59) On or about July 17, 2004, one of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's employees prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's

Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN employed L.G. to perform, among other things, services as a personal assistant. 1) Defendants JEFFREY EPSTEIN and paid T.M., H.R., and A.F. to perform, among other things, recruiting services. 4. Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN owned a property located at 358 El Brillo Way,

e of Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN prepared a written telephone message for Defendant JEFFREY EPSTEIN's review regarding a telephone call received from T.M. and Jane Doe #12 that stated: "They are available all weekend and maybe [Jane Doe #lp] too". 20 EFTA00225820 (83) On or about December 30, 2004

not subject to a Court's discretion. See, e.g., Lopez v. Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congre

d to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 11. Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).2 Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-

se the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your AMant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not inc

S.C. § 3509(k) (emphasis added). The word "shall" means that the statute's command is mandatory and not subject to a Court's discretion. See, e.g., Lopez' Davis, 531 U.S. 230, 241 (2001) (noting Congress' "use of a mandatory `shall' to impose discretionless obligations") (emphasis added); Lexecon Inc

se the U.S. Attorney's modification limited Epstein's liability to victims whom the United States was prepared to name in an indictment. In light of T.M.'s prior statements to law enforcement, your Affiant could not in good faith include T.M. as a victim in an indictment and, accordingly, could not i

d to Bradley Edwards' three clients, T.M., C.W., and S.R.' Your Affiant's letter to C.W. was provided by the FBI. (Ex. 1). Your Affiant's letter to T.M. was hand-delivered by myself to T.M. at the time that she was interviewed (Ex. 2).2 Both C.W. and T.M. also received letters from the FBI's Victim-