Epstein Secrets

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ure 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

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

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

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

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