Epstein Secrets

E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SET CASE FOR 6/30/08 @ 8:30 AM FOR STATUS CHECK LEVHLD - EVENT HELD Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: J EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-DAMES. PLEAD & ADJ GUILTY SEXUAL OFFENDER. PBCJ 6 CONSECUTIVE W/06-9454AXX. 12 MOS PROB. DEFT MU

and other non-parties') motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. 2 EFTA00184005 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX USAO WP 07-20-'09 14:22 MI PR EIO S & LOCICE

sm. EFTA00183942 THE PALM BEACH POST • WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 Women want sex plea deal unsealed Their attorneys will ask a judge to open Jeffrey Epsteffi's records. By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL Palm Beach Post Staff Writer WEST PALM BEACH - When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach pleaded

09 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Lissposition Amount: 'Docket Text: none. 17 ORD - ORDER Filing Date: 10-JUN-2009 Filing Party EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E 'Disposition Amount: iDocket Text: (COLBATH) EVSCH SCHEDULED - HEARING EVENT Filing Date: 11-JUN-2009 Filing Party: Disposition Amount: Docke

minal case. There are civil cases pending against Mr. Epstein. 7. CURRENT AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT:

1 months investigating Epstein, only to see then-State Attorney Barry Krischer kick the case to a grand jury Mr. Krischer backed off when one of Epsteinb gold-plated attor- neys, Alan Dershowitz, announced that some of the victims had posted MySpace comments about their alco- hol and marijuana use.

derly administration of justice" and "protect a compelling government interest." Oh, and third parties might get hurt The compel- ling interest is Epsteinb, and there is no privacy issue since the victims themselves are making the request. Palm. Beach police spent 11 months investigating Epstein, onl

stay one of the civil suits against him. (A- 11 at ¶ 6; A-18, p. 35,1. 18 - p. 36,arporating by reference Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A-6 and Supp.A.-7 I. Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008) at Dkt. 33 pp. 2-5)).) 20 EFTA00183985 the federal civil litigation against Epstein. (Supp.A-5 at p. 4; S

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id. at 491. A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post's Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief. 3 EFTA00184006 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX US

Text: TO CLARIFY SENTENCE TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERROR FILED BY JACK GOLDBERGER 7 1AGOR - AGREED ORDER Filing Date: 04-MAY-2009 Filing Party: JEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: (JUDGE COLBATH) THAT THE ORDER OF COMMUNITY CONTROL IS CORRECTED TO DELETE SPECIAL CONDITION #26 AND

rd parties" and identifies those third parties as Mr. Epstein's co- conspirators. (Petition at 15). Again, Mr.

STER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER W/IN 48 HRS OF RELEASE. DNA SWAB. MER 2 A 1GUIL - JUDGMENT OF GUILTY Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E 'Disposition Amount: Docket Text: none. 2 B FNGR - FINGERPRINTS Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount:

UNTIL NOON ON THURSDAY 02-JUL-2009. MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEFT TO POST BOND - DENIED. 25 J MOT - MOTION Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN JEFFREY E ,I.Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/p1s/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dIctrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00233648 - Not

and other non-parties') motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. 2 EFTA00233652 07/20/Z009 15:23 FAX 5618059846 USA0 WPB CONFRM 07-20-'09 14:22 F

E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: SET CASE FOR 6/30/08 @ 8:30 AM FOR STATUS CHECK EVHLD - EVENT HELD Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: VEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: Docket Text: CR-DAMES. PLEAD & ADJ GUILTY AS CHARGED. STIP/FOUND: SEXUAL OFFENDER. PBCJ 6 MOS W/CD FOR 1 DAY, TO R

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id, at 491. A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post's Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief. 3 EFTA00233653 07/20/2009 15:23 FAX 581

) & (8). It is now beyond dispute, for example, that in September 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contemporaneously filing a motion to have their facts accepted by the Court. EFTA00177009 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ein agreed to a "confidentiality" provision in the agreement barring its disclosure to anyone — including the victims. For the next nine months, as Epstein was well aware, the U.S. Attorney's Office assiduously concealed from the victims the existence of this signed non-prosecution agreement. Indeed, th

t's desire that federal charges be filed against defendant Epstein. In particular, he wrote on behalf of his clients

formally signed a non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein that barred his The victims are contempo

criminal prosecution commensurate with the crimes Mr. Epstein has committed, and we further urge you to take t

ptember 8, 2010, the Court issued an Administrative Order Closing the Case. (DE 38.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a "Notice in Response to Administrative Order," (DE39,) stating that they intended to file documents soon thereafter in connection with the case. On October 12, 2010, the Court issued an Order t

and other non-parties') motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. 2 09112/2019 Page CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331698

411 SDNY_GM_00331699 EFTA 00204425 EFTA02729410 07.'20-'09 14:39 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO 8139843070 T-120 P005/007 F-937 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition — like his initial filing of these documents under seal and his June 11, 2009 Motion to Make Court Records Confidential —was

39843070 T-120 P005/007 F-937 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition — like his initial filing o

FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, PAL

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id. at 491. A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post's Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief, 3 09/12/2019 age 3436 CONFIDENTIAL Age

and other non-parties') motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. 09112/2019 2 Pae CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331776 E

rief. 09/12/2079 3 Page 3514 CONFIDENTIAL Agency to Agency Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM_00331777 EFTA 00204503 EFTA02729488 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition — like his initial filing of these documents under seal and his June 11, 2009 Motion to Make Court Records Confidential — was

FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, PAL

EFTA 00204503 EFTA02729488 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition — like his initial filing o

the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id. at 491. A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post's Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief. 09/12/2079 3 Page 3514 CONFIDENTIAL Ag

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

ptember 8, 2010, the Court issued an Administrative Order Closing the Case. (DE 38.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a "Notice in Response to Administrative Order," (DE39,) stating that they intended to file documents soon thereafter in connection with the case. On October 12, 2010, the Court issued an Order t

eference to the position taken by employees of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in letters to the petitioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ employees relevant to the issue of whether a duty existed under § 3771(a)(5) to consult with petitioners prio

later, on July 9, 2008, the Government filed its Response and an accompanying Declaration, establishing that (1) no federal criminal case charging Epstein had ever been filed and that a non- prosecution agreement ("NPA") had been signed and (2) despite this, the U.S. Attorney's Office had used its best

titioners, or the defense attorneys representing Jeffrey Epstein. Nor are the subjective beliefs of DOJ em

ptember 8, 2010, the Court issued an Administrative Order Closing the Case. (DE 38.) Shortly thereafter, Petitioners filed a "Notice in Response to Administrative Order," (DE39,) stating that they intended to file documents soon thereafter in connection with the case. On October 12, 2010, the Court issued an Order t

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT Appellate Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Respondents/Defendants. / REOUEST FOR EMERGEN

.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, ind

Case No.: LT Case No: 502009CA0408003OOOCMB AG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner/Plaintiff, v. SCOTT ROTHST

018, and the motion was denied. I hereby certify that this request for emergency treatment is made in good faith and I understand that pursuant to Administrative Order 2014 -1, a party or attorney who requests emergency treatment without an objectively reasonable basis for doing so may be sanctioned. Signature: s

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, Respondents. E.W.'S MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS Respondent, E.W., moves pursuant to A

ASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, Respon

TRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al,

iled by Respondent Palm Beach Post seeking appellate attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and 9.410 and Administrative Order 2.303 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida. B.B. requests the Court award her fees and costs incurred as a result of responding in this pro