Epstein Secrets

create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985); see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 14

atement of Undisputed Facts. 12 EFTA00725980 In addition, if Epstein had thought that there was some improper coercion involved in, for example, Jane Doe's case, his remedy was to raise the matter before Federal District Court Judge Kenneth A. Marra who was presiding over the matter. Far from raising an

//www.asis.orglBulletinlAug-12/AugSep12 Bar-Ilan.html Brown, G., Fisher, M., Stoll, N., Beeksma, D., Black, M., Taylor, R., Choe, S., Williams, A., Bryant, W., and Jansen, B.J. (2000) Leveraging a Y2K evaluation to improve information systems architecture, Communications of the ACM. 43(10), 90-97. Jan

76 EFTA00601652 Appendix B Testimony Cases Last Four Years Year Retained Deliverables Retained by Case 2016 Deposition Report Plaintiff Jane Doe v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling Inc.; BHP Billiton Petroleum (Deepwater) Ltd.; Schlumberger Technology Corporation; Aramark Services, In

eputy Chairman e edcan Australian 65.9n 010. In 2014 he became an advisor with the Bespoke Approach lobby -7 NE:ace:L.- ;kftb..1 aeciatNC: "in Bryant Paccar ercieri" t N ccu PC-Ve ;2C1;:.3 cuk. SMaittCet:4 Cieue-Wmecct cc r.•,-).Kze..C-71crS.) itt1/2.1 • • • I KI AL CLA : Man N PRe.frr

014)*5C: 1. • — r. • .L% A Deeeneher so, 2034, federal civil salt was filed in Florida fry Jane Doe s k. -11 V.; El‘..:71 t. ar tc caa, and Jane Doe 2 egainst the United States for violations of the Crime "Mims' iRig is ctby the ailment of J.Isathys NBA with Ensteba and his limited 205/Cite plea.

became an advisor with the Bespoke Approach lobbying firm. [6] ao cgo 9-06 _, -7 Neptcelt- 8O-,51NE-St, NoLf93 Resartia, IN riarc-c_te_To94__ nm Bryant PRCREVCrst e(ti er-r- (N cog posisessitrA aa7Co7- 4200S *PMESZkeM‘s4 Acca.Wmei -i- co Ni\e_.-c.rt -ANzefocaN Gov . . 11•‘..)0(._k:ENtairc trci

d victims.M Victims' rights: Jane Does v. United States (2014) A December 3o, 2014, federal civil suit was filed in Florida by Jane Doe 1(Ma) and Jane Doe 2 against the United States for violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act by the U.S. Department of Justice's NPA with Ili and his limited 2008 sta

rent sentence would be reasonable, it fails to explain*892 why the within-guidelines-range sen- tence received is unreasonable. See United States Bryant. 446 F.3d 1317, 1319 (8th Cir.2 (noting that "there is a range of reason- ableness available to the district court in any given case"). Further, t

ages of a prepubescent fe- male known as Jane Doe. Images of this young girl had been found on several individuals' computers and were labeled with Jane Doe's actual name. NCMEC analysts used this information to locate the girl in Indianapolis, Indiana. Law enforcement officials interviewed Jane Doe. Sh

ards filed a civil sot against Jeffrey Epstein to recover damages for his sexual assault of L.M. See Complaint, LM. v. Epstein, (Exhibit “V”). 3 47. Jane Doe’s federal complaint indicated that she sought damages of more than $50,000,000. Listing the amount of damages sought in the complaint was in accord wit

create an issue and thus avoid summary judgment. Instead, the party must produce counter-evidence establishing a genuine issue of material fact. See Bryant v. Shands Teaching Hospital and Clinics, Inc., 479 So.2d 165, 168 (Fla. 1st Dist. Ct. App. 1985); see also Lanzner v. City of North Miami Beach, 141