Epstein Secrets

xwell's failure is especially jarring in light of the public's interest in this litigation, which involved voluminous documents and testimony about Jeffrey Epstein's transcontinental sex-trafficking operation and documents concerning various public agencies' utter failure to protect and bring justice to his vict

ed, a quick 6 EFTA00075033 CasqaMglitg6taagtalmeabgineAFIVA04146legiteaMbbef-138f 24 Google search of Doe 1 or Doe 2's last name, plus the term "Epstein" or "Maxwell," reveals much of the information about those Non-Parties that is currently under seal. The only argument that Maxwell makes concernin

nvolved voluminous documents and testimony about Jeffrey Epstein's transcontinental sex-trafficking operat

investigation "surrounding the alleged conduct of Mr. Epstein," provides no other information, yet states in a

le v. JPMorgan Chase, 810 F. Supp. 2d 616 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) passim Martindell v. Intl Tel. & Tel. Corp., 594 F.2d 291 (2d Cir. 1979) 10 Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) 3 Prescient Acquisition Grp., Inc. v. MJ Public Trust, 487 F. Supp. 2d 374 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) 9 S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com

413 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Plaintlff-Appelke, —against— GHISLA1NE MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, ALAN M. DERSHOWITZ, MICHAEL CERNOVICH, DBA CERNOVICH MEDIA Intervenors. ON APPEAL FROM TH

and sexual trafficking of minors. Her lawyers intended to prove the defamation claim solely by, in effect, "prosecuting" Ms. Maxwell as a proxy for Epstein. App. p 116, ¶ffil 8-10; p 119 9¶ 27; p 122, ¶ 12; p 123, 51114, 16; p 124,9120. 3 EFTA00075485 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, P

MAXWELL, Defendant-Appellant, SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

LLC v. Cnoi. of Nassau, 730 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2013) 18, 20 iii EFTA00075480 Case 20-2413, Document 40, 08/20/2020, 2913550, Page5 of 74 Nixon a Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) Nosik a Singe, 40 F.3d 592 (2d Cir. 1994) Press-Enter. Co. a Superior Ct., 464 U.S. 501 (1984) S.E.C. v. TheStreet.Com,

50 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae John Doe EFTA00792257 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600, Page3 of 6 --against--- SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD MEDIA COMPANY, Intervenors-Appellants. EFTA00792258 Case 18-2868, Document 153-1, 03/19/2019, 2521600,

n, a party in any judicial proceeding involving Maxwell, involving Plaintiff- Appellee ("M'), or otherwise relating to allegation that Respondent Epstein ("Epstein") sexually abused her. Nor is Amicus aware of any legal proceeding or law enforcement reports in which identified Amicus as a co-conspir

521600, Page3 of 6 --against--- SHARON CHURCHER, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Respondents, JULIE BROWN, MIAMI HERALD

Amicus respectfully submits that the appropriate remedy would be to remand proceedings for an expeditious document-by-document review. See Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 599 (1978) (observing that decisions regarding the appropriateness of sealing the record are "best left to the sound discretio

Haddon, Morgan and Foreman. P.c Jeffrey Paglluca II A D D O N M OR G A N FOREMAN 303.

district and appeals court are actively considering the unsealing of "confidential" materials simultaneous with the criminal prosecution. Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, 435 U.S. 589 (1978), is the closest, yet even there, the U.S. Supreme Court refused press access to the tapes obtained from third parties played in