Epstein Secrets

City National Bank Building 25 W Flagler Street Suite 800 Miami FL 33130-1780 Fax: Email: LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED represented by Robert Deweese Critton , Jr. Burman Critton Luttier & Coleman https://ecf.flsd.useourts.gov/egi-bin/DIctRpt.p17825839498761356-L_801_0-1 6/10/2009 EFTA00175220 CM/ECF

/04/2009) 05/11/2009 5 r RESPONSE/REPLY to 4 Sealed Document, 3 Sealed Document Opposition to Motion to Proceed Anonymously by Jeffrey Epstein. (Critton, Robert) (Entered: 05/11/2009) 05/11/2009 6 r NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Robert Deweese Critton, Jr on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein (Critton

ute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks 521 U.S. 346, 360-61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to t

ra-Johnson Page 29 Respectfully submitted, By: Isl Robert D. Critton, Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar N

e generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hen

a matter of law to the summary judgments sought. WHEREFORE, Defendant requests that this Court enter the summary judgments sought herein. By: re Robert D. Critton. Jr. ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. Florida Bar No. 224162 [email protected] MICHAEL J. PUCE, ESQ. Florida Bar #617296 mnikalclaw.com I HEREBY C

ute is to impose punishment that is criminal in nature, the ex post facto clause is implicated." See generally, Roman Catholic Bishop of Oakland v. Superior Court, 28 Cal.Rptr.3d 355, at 360, citing Kansas v. Hendricks, 521 U.S. 346, 360.61 (1997). The effect of applying the 2006 version of §2255 would be to t

. .lawsuit[] 2 EFTA00177158 Case 9 08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214 (attachment 2). On September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective order, seeking to bar disclo

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Press-Enterprise Co.l Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant scaling, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Steinge

.W. 50 Willia; J. verger SERVICE LIST Jane Kreusler-Walsh Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 11 EFTA00233742 Robert D. Critton Burman, Critton. Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. U.S. Attorney's Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Pal

ray of mandatory closure rules ... proves too much, and runs contrary to the very foundation of the right of access...." Globe Newspa- per Company Superior Court, 102 S.Ct. 2613, 2622 (1982). Accordingly, having considered the briefs and argu- ments of counsel for the reasons set forth in this opinion, it i

] . . .lawsuit[] EFTA00230174 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214 (attachment 2). On September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective order, seeking to bar disclo

ts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger

CV-MARRA 000928 EFTA00230752 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 51 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 3 of 10 Letter from Bradley J. Edwards to Robert D. Critton, Jr., Case No. 9:08-CV-80893, Doc. #214 (attachment 2). On September 2, 2010, Epstein filed a motion for a protective order, seeking to bar disclo

nts and transcripts here could easily kill many reputations. This overriding interest is, I believe, of a higher value under [Ness-Enterprise Co.'. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984)] so as to warrant sealing, and provides good cause under the common-law access balancing test to preclude disclosure. Swinger