Epstein Secrets

Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 205 North Dixie Highway, Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 June 30, 2009 Re: Epstein v. State of Florida 15th Circuit Court Case No. 2008CF009381A Dear Judge Colbath: TELEPHONE (56 1) 659-6455 FACSIMILE (561) 820-8762 Enclosed is

Records b) Palm Beach Post's Motions to Intervene and petition for Access c) B.B's 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.

ate referred to above. DONE AND ORDERED in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida this SIGNED AND DATED day of June, 2009. 1 JUN 2 6 2009 JEFFREY liCOLBATH _COLSATH Circuit Court Judge EFTA00180625 Page Two Case No. 502008CF009381AXXMB/502006CF009454AXXMB Order Denying Motion to Stay Disc

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

effrey Epstein Dear Judge Colbath: On behalf of Mr. Epstein, we strongly object to the proposed order submitt

, a.m. with appearances 8 as hereinbefore noted, to wit: 9 THEREUPON: 10 MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Judge, 11 Jack Goldberger on behalf of Jeffrey 12 Epstein. 13 THE COURT: Good morning. 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor, we are 15 here for a plea conference. 16 THE COURT: Raise your right hand. 17 T

f exactly how Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys participated in misleading the victims. See Attachment 1 (Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA Dexter Lee). Indeed, it appears that the Government may have provided an inaccurate description of another feature of the non- prosecution agreement to the vic

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

Requet: 19-411 SDNY_GM _00332020 EFTA_00204746 EFTA02729730 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

tion is an agreement between the United Statesand Jeffrey Epstein that (as described in earlier court plea

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

hereto (collectively referred to as the "Agreements), between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") and JeffreyEpstein ("Epstein'). At a hearing held on August 14,2008, the Court ordered the USAir./ to produce the Agreement to counsel for the Petitioners and to any o

of exactly how kitty Epstein's attorneys participated in misleading the victims. See Attachment 1 (Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA Dexter Lee). Indeed, it appears that the Government may have provided an inaccurate description of another feature of the non- U U U U prosecution agreemen

It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing b

well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain."). The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's at

-2006 Amendments version of the law applies. See Defendant Epstein's Motion to Dismiss, for More Definite Statement

he terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffre

made a part of the record and the extent to which Mr. Epstein, through his attorneys, was culpable. Sincerely

ion to Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October 9, 2008 letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee, # 2 Exhibit October 15, 2008 Letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 10/16/2008) PACER Service Center T

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00177813 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

tion agreement" ("the agreement") between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to (1) plead guilty to two then pend

the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims'

ould render Rule 410 ambiguous and would violate Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. The rule's central fea

on to Motion to Unseal Non—Prosecution Agreement filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: fll. Exhibit October 9, 2008 letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee, #.2 Exhibit October 15, 2008 Letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee)(Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 10/16/2008) 10/16/2008 31 REPLY

to Intervene on a Limited Basis filed by United States of America. Replies due by 2/2/2015. ( ) (Entered: 01/22/2015) 295 MOTION Limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Response to Order Requesting Justification for Supplemental Protective Order re 286 Order by Jeffrey Epstein. (Black, Roy) Modified to re- docket, s

iled by Jane Doe. (Edwards, Bradley) (Entered: 10/28/2013) MOTION to Expedite Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Unopposed Motion for Expedited Ruling on Epstein's Unopposed Motion for Intervention in Advance of Eleventh Circuit Argument by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Edwards, Bradley)

t Palm Beach, Fl 33401 561-202-6360 Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein Intervenor Alan M. Dershowitz Interven

nt conference 385 386 388 , the Court finds that Mr. Epstein's interest in this case is adequately preserved b

ion to Motion to Unseal Non-Prosecution Agreement filed by Jane Doe. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit October 9, 2008 letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee, # 2 Exhibit October 15. 2008 Letter from Brad Edwards, Esquire to AUSA Dexter Lee)(Edwards. Bradley) (Entered: 10/16/2008) 10/16/2008 31 REPLY t

It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing b

well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain."). The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's at

he terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffre

f exactly how Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys participated in misleading the victims. See Attachment 1 (Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA Dexter Lee). Indeed, it appears that the Government may have provided an inaccurate description of another feature of the non- prosecution agreement to the vic

It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing b

well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain."). The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's at

he terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffre

e description of another feature of the non- prosecution agreement to the victims. See Attachment 2 (Oct. 15, 2008 Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA Dexter Lee (noting Government's representation to victims of a right to recover at least $150,000 in damages from Jeffrey Epstein while Jeffrey Epstein's lawye

It has utterly failed to even offer any such cause — much less show that it is good cause. Second, the Government — with the apparent contrivance of Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys — has made inaccurate representations about the nature of the non-prosecution agreement in its notices to the victims and in its filing b

well as to the Court — lies with Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys'. See Gov't Response at 5 ("the [inaccurate] victim notification letter was provided to Epstein's attorneys prior to being sent, who approved the language of which the petitioners now complain."). The apparent approval by Jeffrey Epstein's at

he terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffre

f exactly how Jeffrey Epstein's attorneys participated in misleading the victims. See Attachment 1 (Oct. 9, 2008, Letter from Brad Edwards, Esq. to AUSA Dexter Lee). Indeed, it appears that the Government may have provided an inaccurate description of another feature of the non- prosecution agreement to the vic