Epstein Secrets

LORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed Pla

d allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and settlement negotiation letter that Epstein's defense lawyers sent to the government. The quote, in its entirety, is five or six words. The quote is redacted from the public filing but it is

Epstein MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. By: s/Martin G. Weinberg MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. Massachusetts Bar No. 519480 [email protected] On behalf of Jay Epstein 17 EFTA00210733 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 295 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/26/2015 Page 18 of 18 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY tha

TES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

ar tactics before. In prior civil litigation with Mr. Epstein, one of plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Edwards, throug

e press has already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixonl. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. II). "Although difficult to define in absolute terms," the term `good cause' "generally signifies a sound basis or

uly 10.2020.2:06 AN1 • I I mm mod GNsialne Maxwell behind ban as new details emerge Jeffrey Epstein's ex-gw1.0. Wenta. groom and 11 VI • J.66, Epstem's sex aunts by he@ng him Ghislaine Maxwell, a British socialite and longtime companion of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, is facing a reckonin

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

his apartments in New York City — near his own townhouse, where he would allegedly rape her the next year. MAIM Feds finally start investigating Jeffrey Epstein's gal pal Ghislaine Maxwell "In 1997, while at Epstein's townhouse on 9 East 71st Street in the City of New York. Epstein asked 17-year-old Doe if sh

TA00075089 ca3FtsVrit5164 Get. PtiftitPtiktivektA8Siig W*40441319 Q. List all the people under the age of 18 that you interacted with at any of Jeffrey's properties? A. I'm not aware of anybody that I interacted with, other than obviously (the plaintiff) who was 17 at this point. (Title 18, Unit

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of Preside

ARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action unde

d States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO"), represented by Assistant United States Attorney El Marie'. Esq., and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement ("Agreement"), which the parties agreed to keep confidential. Prior to entering into that Agreement,

. i'ZB/VZT ..Pfilia'rritreZSII • as: elni r JEFFREY E. EF;13TEXF1 Z41. --- . Dem • J e ' • Jr

. i'ZB/VZT ..Pfilia'rritreZSII • as: elni r JEFFREY E. EF;13TEXF1 Z41. --- . Dem • J e ' • Jr

ant United States Attorney El Marie'. Esq., and Mr. Epstein, entered into a deferred- prosecution agreement (

.R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon ! Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere w

LORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs' lawyers filed Pla

d allow Professor Dershowitz to intervene. At the very end, on page 38, the Plaintiffs quote from a 2007 plea and settlement negotiation letter that Epstein's defense lawyers sent to the government. The quote, in its entirety, is five or six words. The quote is redacted from the public filing but it is

TES OF AMERICA, : Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S RESPONSE TO ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

ar tactics before. In prior civil litigation with Mr. Epstein, one of plaintiffs' lawyers, Mr. Edwards, throug

s already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records." Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. II). "Although difficult to define in absolute terms," the term `good cause' "generally signifies a sound basis or

FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARFtA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICATION FOR SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER A few days ago, on January 21, 2015, the plaintiffs= lawyers filed P

lawyers and parties in this case are already bound by a Protective Confidentiality Order issued by this Court on September 21, 2014, finding that AEpstein has shown good cause to prevent potential dissemination of the correspondence between the government and the intervenor to the press for the purpos

TATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. LIMITED INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN=S RESPONSE To ORDER REQUESTING JUSTIFICA

ar tactics before. In prior civil litigation with Mr. Epstein, one of plaintiffs= lawyers, Mr. Edwards, throug

s already been permitted substantial access to the contents of the records.@ Newman v. Graddic, 696 F.2d 796, 803 (11th Cir. 1983) (citing Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. at 598-603 & n. 11). AAlthough difficult to define in absolute terms,@ the term >good cause= Agenerally signifies a sound basis or

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEA

/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under seal.' The Court has carefully consid

JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS

. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere wi

/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Ex Parte and Under Seal, filed July 10, 2008. Defendant seeks to file a Notice of Continued Pendency of Federal Criminal Action unde

JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 4, Plaintiff, 1. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEA

R. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere w

/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS CAUSE comes before the Court on Defendant Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to File Under Seal, filed July 28, 2008. Defendant seeks to file his reply to his Motion to Stay under seal.' The Court has carefully consid

JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEAL THIS

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiff, v. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SEA

. 5.4(A). It is well settled that the media and the public in general possess a common-law right to inspect and copy judicial records. See Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). "The right to inspect and copy records is not absolute, however. As with other forms of access, it may interfere wi

ficant facts since briefing closed on the first round of review of sealed materials. After many months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in his criminal activities, the government secured an indictment against her. On July 2, one day after

months of relentless negative media coverage of Mr. Epstein and allegations that Ms. Maxwell was involved in

in deciding whether to unseal materials it was important to give weight to the impact on a criminal defendant's right to a fair trial. In Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978), a number of media moved the district court to release audio tapes admitted into evidence in the trial of four of Preside