Epstein Secrets

0119 Page No. 15 from any disclosures and are therefore different than a regulated/public record that can be accessed by the public. In Trudeau v. New York State Consumer Protection Bd., 237 F.R.D. 325 (N.D.N.Y. 2006), the court maintained that "[r]outine discovery of tax returns is not the rule but rather t

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

2:57:43 PM • “Woman Sues Billionaire Investor, Says They Had Sex When She Was 16” published on October 18, 2007, reporting on a lawsuit brought in New York State court against Epstein “by a young woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and had sought his help becoming a model.” • “Palm Beacher Plead

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

his case.” • “Woman Sues Billionaire Investor, Says They Had Sex When She Was 16” published on October 18, 2007, reporting on a lawsuit brought in New York State court against Epstein “by a young woman who says he had sex with her when she was 16 and had sought his help becoming a model.” • “Palm Beacher P

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

come Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.2d 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.1974), are particularly relevant to the case at hand. Both cases involved federal grand jury su

ants is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 P.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205, 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1974) (quoting Stone, 429 F.2d at 140). In accordance with its broad mandate to investigate po

ts is without a basis in Florida law. We fmd no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef

2667, 33 L.Ed.2d 626 (1972) (quoting United States v. Stone, 429 F.2d 138, 140 (2d Cir.1970)); In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205. 1206 (W.D.N.Y.1974) (quoting Stone. 429 F.2d at 140). In accordance with its broad mandate to investigate po

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that It)he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

come Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed. 607 F.2d 566 (24 Cir.I979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records. 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.1974), are particularly relevant to the case at hand. Both cases involved federal grand jury su

s is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from F1a.Stat. § 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that [t]he rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses b

come Tax Records, 468 F.Supp. 575 (N.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 607 F.24 566 (2d Cir.1979), and In re Grand Jury Subpoena for the Prod. of Certain New York State Sales Tax Records, 382 F.Supp. 1205 (W.D.N.Y.I974), are particularly relevant to the case at hand. Both cases involved federal grand jury su

nts is without a basis in Florida law. We find no evidence that the Florida courts derive an evidentiary privilege from Fla.Stat. 905.27. Indeed, the Florida Supreme Court has noted that Mlle rule of secrecy concerning matters transpiring in the grand jury room is not designed for the protection of witnesses bef