Epstein Secrets

ern District of Florida. However, the NP A does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in other than in the Southern District of Florida. As the court has acknowledged in its orders ( e.g., 9 Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Document 477 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/26/2010 Page 10 of 24

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, I 50-51 (Fla. 1989): The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free fr

ne 2007. However, at the request ofEpstein’s lawyers, the indictment was never presented to a federal grand jury. 25. Instead, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, negotiated a plea deal with Epstein’s team of lawyers to grant immunity to Epstein (along with four named co-conspirators and any

iction And Authority. (1) The Court’s Supervision of the Grand Jury Process and Its Authority to Order Public Disclosure of the Epstein Evidence. 60. The Florida Supreme Court has noted that “in states such as Florida, where the grand jury is preserved, it is an important appendage of the court which impanels it. At the sam

ghts for crime victi~s, including th~ right i fo be informed about plea agreements and the right to appear at sentencing. :U.S. District Judge fot the Southern District of Florida, Kenneth A. Marra, ruled in 2019 that federal prosecutors violated the CVRA by faili_ng to notify Epstein's victi111s b~f9re allowing him to p)ead g

before the court; (b) Determining whether the witness is guilty of peijury; or (c) Furthering justice.” Fla. Stat. § 905.27(l)(a)-(c). The Florida 2 The Florida Supreme Court has similarly confirmed that grand jury secrecy is not absolute and that any “harm to public officeholders [from disclosure] will be the product of t

tion. Moreover, fue NP A does not provide Epstein with any protection from criminal investigation or prosecution in any federal district other than the Southern District of Florida. The Second Amended Complaints and Plaintiff Response at DE 485, p.18 include averments that Epstein both resided in and engaged in illegal sexual

Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989): The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free fro

all pertain to the negotiation and eventual entering into of a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the United States Attorney's Office (USAO) for the Southern District of Florida. See part I above herein. Again, the constitutional issues raised in Defendant's response permeate these discovery requests. The full text of Feder

ourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, but also under the Constitution of the State of Florida, Art. I, Sect. 23. As summarized by the Florida Supreme Court in Shaktman v. State, 553 So.2d 148, 150-51 (Fla. 1989): The right of privacy, assured to Florida's citizens, demands that individuals be free fro

07. However, at the request of Epstein’s lawyers, the indictment was never presented to a federal grand jury. 22. Instead, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, Alexander Acosta, negotiated a plea deal with Epstein’s team of lawyers to grant immunity to Epstein (along with four named co-conspirators and an

she wanted a sealed copy of the agreement filed in his case, and Goldberger concurred that he wanted it sealed. Belohlavek later signed off on it. The Florida Supreme Court has expressed "serious concern" and launched an all-out inquiry into sealing procedures across the state following media reports in 2006 of entire