Epstein Secrets

Cal. Rptr. 3d 467 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) 28, 29 iii D14'71584534593 3970112-000042 EFTA00596452 O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975) 13 O'Neill v. Oakgrove Coast. Inc., 71 1.2d 521, 528 ad 1 (1988) 1, 2, 22 People ex reL Scott v. Silverstein, 412 II2d 692 (III. App. Ct. 1980), rev d on o

that Rush had waived sa applicable reporter's privilege by disclosing brief portions of the Epstein interview to third parties (Balin Aff. Ex. K (Jane Doe's Response in Opposition to Motion of Daily News, to Quash Subpoena), at 6-13) — the same exact waiver argument he makes here. The federal District

) the strength of t e evidence upon which the pretrial detention was based." tired States Milian, 4 F.3d 1038, 1043 (2d Cir. 1993); United States O'Neill, 52 F. Supp. 2d 954, 960 (ED. Wis. 1999)(to get to first base on this issue, the defendant must show that either the prosecution or the court has u

8's eighteenth birthday, and when Jane Doe #19 was seventeen years old. [NB: The police report describes a pattern of activity, including dates when Jane Doe #18 was seventeen years old.] Neither Jane Doe #18 nor #19 ever returned to Epstein's home. Although we have not yet obtained Jane Doe #18's teleph

ratore a back massage while Libera- tore lay on Poe's bed. (Summary at 2.) With regard to Plaintiff, in January of 2001, Bishop Timlin received the O'Neill Letter informing him that Plaintiff often- times slept overnight in Liberatore's bed- room at the Rectory and that Liberatore had taken Plaintiff o

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