Epstein Secrets

tt n beck-PHefrN41 11.2—bie -Ihotif- t ,12 eLtiocut EFTA01682778 Women want sex plea deal unsealed Their attorneys will ask a judge to open Jeffrey Epstein's records. By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL Palm Beach Post Ste Writes WEST PALM BEACH — When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach pleaded g

was 16-years-old, told police that she was pai y Epstein to have as he watched. The girl also told police

news conference outside the federal courthouse in West Palm Beach. They distribaed copies of documents showing that the girl's father and Lawyer Jeffrey Her- man (left) conducts a news conference Thursday with the fa- ther and stepmother of a girl who claims wealthy money man- ager Jeffrey Epstein

owder-blue sweater "I've only ever seen ben in pans." Ns friend the publicist Peggy Siegal had reported saying there was a hint of arrogance in that Epeteins signal that he doesn't have to wear a uniform lee the rest of us I told Epstein and Rubenstein the sort of story New York wanted to do. and Epstein

There are women who have filed lawsuits against Mr. Epstein and we will challenge them," Epstein's attorney

e wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document. Marra ruled "If a specific tangible need a

ein will object to the unsealing of the agreement. Accordingly, the court should provide notice of this motion to Jeffrey Epstein, through counsel. Jeffrey Epstein's counsel has entered an appearance in several related civil suits, including Jane Doe v. Jeffrey Epstein, United States District Court, Southern Dist

dings publicly filed by the Government) involved EFTA00235139 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer

ion is an agreement between the United States and Jeffrey Epstein that (as described in earlier court plea

eed under Section 2255 as she would have had, if Mr. Epstein had been tried federally and convicted of an enu

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

cher By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL Palm Beath Rot Staff ;Voter WEST PALM BEACH — A judge on Friday declined to suspend his ruling to unseal financier Jeffrey Epstein's secret non-pros- ecution deal with federal prosecutors. but delayed the docwnent's release until Thursday. The delay gives Ep- stein's attorneys

g a Palm Beach Police Department investigation, five victims and 17 witnesses gave statements. They told of young women brought by his assistants to Eptstein's mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and sexual activity, and then being paid afterward. At Epstein's plea conference last year, his attorney, J

h federal prosecutors to avoid charges should be sealed, according to a transcript of the hearing. Jeffrey Epstein And so it was. . Billionaire Jeffrey ff • Epstein has been sentenced to 18 months for felony solicitation of prostitution following accusations by teen girls. Past coverage - O

the attorney for Palm Beach Marine. "Apparently, Mr. Epstein blew his top when he saw the bill. Still, 100 gra

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

ant so that they could serve you? 17 18 foundation, predicate. 19 BY MR. TEIN: 20 Q. You can answer the question. 21 Isn't it true that Mr. Epstein's process MR. LEOPOLD: Objection. Lack of MR. LEOPOLD: If you know. Don't guess. 22 THE WITNESS: No. Can you repeat the I 23 question? 24 MR.

Unseal Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) Motions to Intervene and for an order to Unseal Records d) Jeffrey Epstein's Motion to Make Court Records Confidential. The only matter before the court today was Defendant Epstein's Motion for a Stay which the court denied.

P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Deanna K. Shullman, Esq. P. O. Box 2602 Tampa, FL 33602 EFTA00232238 i Judge Jeffrey 3. Colbath 205 North Dixie Highway West_Palm Beach, FL 33401 WEST PALM BEACH. FLORIDA 33401 1 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 . Albeit AcoSTAi CSC\ U.S. Attorn

tial. The only matter before the court today was Defendant Epstein's Motion for a Stay which the court denied. Cont

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha

As an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing t

r attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." (DE 26 at 1.) Presumably, petitioners' motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms of the Protective Order, to enable

o between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by t

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

As an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing t

ir attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." D.E. 26 at 1. Presumably, petitioner's motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms of the Protective Order, to enable

o between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by t

rmation received concerning the Agreement. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of consu

As an initial matter, the motion should be denied because the non-prosecution agreement entered into between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by the United States, either under seal or otherwise. On August 14, 2008, this Court held a telephonic hearing t

r attorneys shall not disclose the Agreement or its terms to any third party absent further court order, following notice to and an opportunity for Epstein's counsel to be heard." (DE 26 at 1.) Presumably, petitioners' motion to unseal is an effort to modify the terms of the Protective Order, to enable

o between the United States Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein was never filed in the instant case by t

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons