Epstein Secrets

ng Co 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2005) 23 Oregonian Publishing Co. v. United States District Court 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) 9 U.S. v. Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2007) 23 United States v. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9 State Cases Anderson v. E.T., 862 So. 2d

fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel for E.W. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not

Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post") its attorneys' fees and costs in responding to this petition. JURISDICTION The Post adopts Respondent E.W.'s statement concerning jurisdiction. Insofar as this Court finds jurisdiction, the Post requests that this Court expedite its consideration of this

tects "matter[sJ occurring before the grand jury," including "the strategy or direction of the investigation . . . and the like"); United States v. Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651, 655-56 (E.D. Va. 2007) (explaining that the rule protects disclosure of "the strategy or direction of a grand jury investigat

'S MOTION TO DISIMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, replies to the three separate responses filed by respondents, E.W., B.B., and the Post, and responds to E.W.'s Request to Dismiss Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction as follows: The non-prosecution agreement and adde

agreement and addendum is confidential by its terms. Mr. Epstein directs this Court to review paragraph 13 of the sealed non-prosecution agreement. E.W.'s argument is also disingenuous. EW has had the non-prosecution agreement for months, yet never advanced this position in federal or state court un

1097 (Fla. 1987) 8 Pisciotti v. Stephens, 940 So. 2d 1217 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006) 16 Sabo! v. Bennett, 672 So. 2d 93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996) 9 U.S. v. Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2007). 15 Statutes § 69.081(4), Florida Statutes 13 Rules Administrative Order 2.303-9/08 12 Federal Rule o

was entitled to see the nonprosecution agreement in cases other than the one immediately before it. Back in state court, one of Epstein's victims, E.W., intervened in the criminal case and moved to vacate the order sealing the nonprosecution agreement. (A-10). E.W. argued that the agreement was imp

that it is pointless to keep the document sealed in state court. (A-11, p. 4). The trial court held a hearing on the motions to intervene filed by E.W. and the Post. (Respondent B.B.'s Appendix ("RA")). The judge advised the parties that it did not appear the proper procedures were followed with re

g Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2005) 23 Oregonian Publishing Co.'. United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) 9 U.S. I Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651 (E.D. Va. 2007) 23 United States'. Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) 9 State Cases Anderson I E.T., 862 So. 2d 83

for respondent, State of Florida) B.B. (non-party intervener) William J. Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (counsel for non-party intervener, E.W.) Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (circuit court judge) Barbara J. Compiani of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petiti

fact, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel for E.W. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7,11. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not

pp. 1299, 1302-03 (M.D. Fla. 1977). In other words, Rule 6 is implicated if disclosure would reveal secret inner workings of the grand jury. U.S. . Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651, 654 (E.D. Va. 2007). Disclosure of details of a government investigation that is independent of a parallel grand jury proceed

not a record of the federal court. (A-6) ("First, as respondent points out, the Agreement was not filed in this 10 The Post adopts and incorporates E.W.'s arguments and analysis on this issue in addition to the arguments it sets forth herein. " The Post notes that A-3 through A-5 were not part of th

at the reply is due 10 days from service of the last-filed response. Opposing counsel has contacted counsel for respondents (William J. Berger for E.W.; Diana L. Martin for B.B.; and Deanna K. Shullman for the Post), who have all advised they have no objection to this motion. 2 EFTA00233660 -Q-~