Epstein Secrets

ew attention of the highest-ranking law enforcement officials in Palm Beach County. Frustrated during the course of the investigation, Police Chief Michael Reiter even penned a letter to State Attorney Barry Krischer, calling his office's handling of the investigation "highly unusual" and suggesting that he d

ourse of the investigation, Police Chief Michael Reiter even penned a letter to State Attorney Barry Kris

gate suspected crimes without inhibition and engage in unrestricted deliberations." Lockhead Martin Corp... Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1279 (M.D. Ha. 2005). The rule aims to "prevent disclosure of the way in which information was presented to the grand jury, the specific questions and inquiries

abeut-the-atteme representotive-fer-the-githr we ean-diweues.-what-I-ean4611-him-and-fhe-giris-ebew-the-aretweettir I4new-that Andrpremised-Ghief--Reiter-an-update-when-a-resehuien-was-aeltieved Retande-is-eftilingr but-Relande-lenews-ne4-te-tell-Ghief--Reiter-about-the-money isuo, just about what cr

. Instead, he brought the case to a grand jury, which charged Epstein on the lesser charge of soliciting prostitution. Then-Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter wrote Krischer a letter asking him to remise himself from the case. When that didn't happen, Reiter requested an FBI investigation to determine if a

terial even if there 'certainly is a public interest in knowing more' about its contents." Tillman'. C.R. Bard, Inc., Case No. 3:13-cv-222-J-34JBT (M.D. Ha. March 13, 2014), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41406, at *6, quoting Seattle Times Co.'. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20, 31 (1984) Placing limitations on the diss

eing offered. However I expressed that was only my opinion and the final approval would come from the Chief of Police. She explained to have Chief Reiter call Barry Krisher about the deal. I left the area and returned to the police station where I briefed the Chief about the deal offered. I checked

t defendant is served. See Hill Dermaceuticals, Inc. v. RX Solutions, United Health Group, Inc., No. 6:08-cv-330-Or1-31KRS, 2008 WL 1744794, at *3 (M.D. Ha. Apr. 11, 2008) (concluding that removal petition was timely where it was filed within 30 days after the last defendant was served). 2. Notice has