Epstein Secrets

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

quire confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida constitution and common law in this case. In particular, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not restrict access to the NPA. Federal Rule 6(e) restrains grand jurors, court reporters, government attorneys, interpreters a

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

ments of law when unsealing the nonprosecution agreement because the agreement references federal grand jury proceedings, which are protected under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(2). Epstein failed to raise this argument in his motion to make the agreement confidential, (A-13), and he did not demonstrate at th

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-~

quire confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida constitution and common law in this case. In particular, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not restrict access to the NPA. Federal Rule 6(e) restrains grand jurors, court reporters, government attorneys, interpreters a

Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of E.W., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of B.B., Assistant State Attorney Barbara Burns was present on behalf of the State of Florida. No appearance

w it for you. SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00180859 17 i I 1 absolutely 100 percent protected from 2 disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal 3 Procedure Six. I have a copy of that rule 4 for the Court. 5 THE COURT: Let me take a look of 6 that, please. 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: Give us o

quy, they were an inducement for defendant to enter into his guilty pleas. They are proper objects of discovery. However, unless they are unsealed, E.W. is unable to obtain them or utilize them in her case. 7. Pursuant to Rule 2.420(dX5), the Court must hold a hearing on this motion in open court.

jury matter that is SUSAN WIGGINS, R.P.R. AND OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER EFTA00231362 17 1 absolutely 100 percent protected from 2 disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal 3 Procedure Six. I have a copy of that rule 4 for the Court. 5 THE COURT: Let me take a look of 6 that, please. 7 MR. GOLDBERGER: Give us o