Epstein Secrets

Benjamin Lecture), OH John Jay College of Criminal Justice, NY NAS-YouTube, Science Speed Date, Los Angeles, CA Foundation for Critical Thinking, Berkeley CA SymposiumTraumatic Memories, Forensic Psychiatry Center & Hogrefe Publishers, Helsinki, Finland American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, Newp

le University (one week) Duke University University of California, Santa Barbara California State University, Fullerton University of California, Berkeley State University of New York, Stony Brook Hope College University of Nebraska, Omaha Canadian Bar Association, Vancouver Pennsylvania Trial Lawy

Balancing with the players stacked against you. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 365-366 (Book Review). Loftus, E.F. & Guyer, M. (2002) Who Abused Jane Doe?: The Hazards of the Single Case History. Skeptical Inquirer. Part I. Vol 26, #3 (May/June), Pp. 24-32. Loftus, E. F. & Guyer, M. J. (2002) Who Abu

d Brake, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 683 (D. Kansas, 1995); Berkeley v. Eisen, 699 So.2d 789 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999) (Cour

ached hereto as Exhibit "A" served by Plaintiff, Jane Doe ("Jane Doe"), on JP Morgan Chase & Co ("JP Morgan

, 500 So. 2d 533, 536 (Fla. 1987). Orders compelling discovery constitute state action that may impinge on the constitutional right of privacy. See Berkeley, 699 So. 2d at 790. The court must balance the competing interests, privacy versus the need for discovery, that would be served by granting or deny

equest as true, photographing Epstein's genitalia could potentially provide a 'lead or clue' to evidence having a tendency to incriminate. 8. In Jane Doe No. 2 v. Epstein, Case No. 08-CIV-80119 MARRA/JOHNSON, the Court sustained Epstein's Fifth Amendment objections to several interrogatories a

ultimedia Searching on Alta Vista, Proceedings of the 5th ACM SIG Multimedia International Workshop on Multimedia Information Retrieval, p.186-192. Berkeley, California. Jansen, B.J. (2003) Designing Automated Help Using Searcher System Dialogues, Proceedings of the 2003 IEEE International Conference on

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

, Marvin Minsky (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Erik Mueller (IBM T. J. WatsonResearch Center), Srini Narayanan (University of California, Berkeley), Ashwin Ram (Georgia Institute of Technology), Doug Riecken (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Roger Schank (Carnegie Mellon University), Mary She

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones

Marvin Minsky (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Erik Mueller (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Srini Narayanan (University of California, Berkeley), Ashwin Ram (Georgia Institute of Technology), Doug Riecken (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Roger Schenk (Carnegie Mellon University), Mary She

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant "admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doc to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones

ucation Fall Conference, San Francisco, CA, October 21- 24, 1998. 98. Research and treatment with highly traumatized preschoolers. Wright Institute, Berkeley, Feb. 4, 2002. 12 EFTA00182872 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 144-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/08/2009 Page 13 of 23 110. Presentations of v

public disclosure of the victims' identities in these cases, and allowed the Plaintiff in that case to "proceed in this action under the pseudonym 'Jane Doe' ", by Order dated October 6, 2008. 7. Jeffrey Epstein sets forth no facts to support his bare contention that Jane Does 2- 7 use of a pseudonym in

ne Clarence, Kate Dyer, Clarence & Dyer LLP, Jan Nielsen Little, Keker & Van Nest, LLP, San Francisco, CA, William S. Berland, Ferguson & Berland, Berkeley, CA, for Defendants. ORDER CHARLES R. BREYER, J. *1 Now pending before the Court is plaintiffs motion for attorneys' fees incurred in enforcing i

affirm the judgment of the District Court. John DOE # 1; Kelly Doe # 1, Parents of Jane Doe # 1, Individually and as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 1; John Doe # 2; Kelly Doe # 2, Parents of Jane Doe # 2, as Guardians on behalf of Minor Jane Doe # 2 I William Lawson CHAMBERLIN, Jr.; Kathr

Marvin Minsky (Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Erik Mueller (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Srini Narayanan (University of California, Berkeley), Ashwin Ram (Georgia Institute of Technology), Doug Riecken (IBM T. J. Watson Research Center), Roger Schank (Carnegie Mellon University), Mary She

there, in facts far different from those presented here, the defendant admitted using both a cellular telephone and a land-line telephone to entice Jane Doe to engage in prostitution" (emphasis added). That admission makes Evans no precedent for a prosecution here, since there is no evidence the phones