Epstein Secrets

ley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

fy a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite

ify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION

st Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTH

tify a Rule 2.420(cX9) Interest that Warrants Closure. 16 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA. 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA 21 CONCLUSION

ley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 4 day of July, 2009. 26 on

n determining that no such privacy interest was implicated. 2. The Federal Court's Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Ha. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court's Orders Unsealing the NPA.1° Nor did the trial court's rejection of Petitioner's comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In t