Epstein Secrets

arry M. Hartman, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Dexter W. Lehtinen, U.S. Atty., and Susan Hill P002011, As

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

June 10, 2009 but took no immediate action on E. W.'s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Uns

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

ont Butler Law Offices of Rex Lamont Butler 745 W. 4th Ave., Suite 300 Anchorage, AK 99501 SIM Ex

y a Rule 2.420(c)(9) 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

0233319 sent to the United States Attorney, 222 W. 7th Avenue, Room 253, Anchorage, AK 99513. Such

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

AM FILED BY BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. RE:NON PARTY E W.'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SEALING AND UNSEAL RECO

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

ed in this 10 The Post adopts and incorporates E.W.'s arguments and analysis on this issue in additi

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