Epstein Secrets

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

e of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum. 13 1. Petitioner Cannot Identify 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 Proced

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

sure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum 13 1. Petitioner Cannot Identify 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 Proced

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

sure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum. 13 1. Petitioner Cannot Identify 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 Proced

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

ith be argued that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in 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 o