Epstein Secrets

in hereby notifies the Court that the State Court action, State of Florida' Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 2006 CF 09454 AXX (Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County), was resolved on June 30, 2008. See Final Disposition sheets, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The federal criminal proceeding, however, remains pend

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif. v. Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it

he was born in Sacramento, California to parents) I 'date of birth) currently resides in and date of birth currently resides in moved to Palm Beach County, Florida with her parents when she was four years old and returned to California at age 11. She returned to Florida at age 13 and was placed in a r

he invitation and made no submission. The court then entered an order granting the motions to co. quash. Applying the balancing test set forth in Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Nonhwest, 441 U.S. 211, 99 S.Ct. 1667. 60 L.Ed.2d 156 (1979), the court found that the government had failed to establish a suffic

spects. First, in 2006, Jeffrey Epstein was charged with felony solicitation of prostitution in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida. This charge was based upon the offenses alleged in paragraph 1 of the petition. Second, while Epstein has been under federal investigation

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif, Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it wi

rage girls to the residence. The recruiter, upon information and belief, generally sought out economically disadvantaged underage girls from western Palm Beach County who would be enticed by the money being offered - generally $200 to $300 per "massage" session - and who were perceived as less likely to complain t

by the corporations which are defendants in the civil case, the considerations . . . militating against disclosure are beside the point.") (citing Douglas Oil Co. of Calif Petrol Stops Nw., 441 U.S. 211 (1979)). In response to such third-party subpoenas to law-enforcement witnesses, we anticipate that it will

squire (via facsimile) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00180624 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF0094S4AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYIN

e 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal

e) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00231116 day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYIN

e 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal

e) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00232236 day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381A>O(MB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYI

e 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can, absent findings, order the unsealing of federal

tatutes §796.03, §796.07, §796.045, §796.04, §796.09, §39.01, and §827.04. Page 4 of 12 EFTA00208865 16. The above-described acts took place in Paint Beach County, Florida at the residence of the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein. Any assertions by the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, that he was unaware of the age of th

The Supreme Court has explained that a party seeking disclosure of grand jury materials must make a showing of a "particularized need." Id. (citing Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 222 (1979)). Petitioners cannot make such a showing. Moreover, the documents they seek to make available