Epstein Secrets

nder Acosta, Esq. USAO Barbara Burns, Esq. ASAO Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton. Esq.

sed in the Crime Victims' Rights Act. DATED this 7th day of July, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioner Florida Bar if 2028 Harrison Street Suite 202 Hollywood, Florida 33020 Telephone: Facsimile: 8 $0410 EFTA00

, Esq. USAO Barbara Burns, Esq. ASAO Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See htto://www.ncvli,ortzThavra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perha

s of those signed acknowledgements to abide by the Protective Order were then to be provided "promptly" to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has provided a signed acknowledgement. 2 EFTA00204642 decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising Inc.. City of Clearwater Fla., 351 F.3d 1112,

to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has provided a signed acknowledgement. 2 EFTA0

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

s of those signed acknowledgements to abide by the Protective Order were then to be provided "promptly" to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has provided a signed acknowledgement. 2 EFTA00215926 decision. Granite State Outdoor Advertising Inc. v. City of Clearwater Fla., 351 F.3d 1112

to the United States. To date, only Attorney Brad Edwards has provided a signed acknowledgement. 2 EFTA0

reement to the United States. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss with others the "possible legal responses" to the Government, including the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys, also provides no basis for vacatur of the Protective Order. Petitioners contend that the "sealing order would apparently block these forms of cons

ent should be unsealed. DATED this 25th day of September, 2008. Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: s/ Brad Edwards Brad Edwards, Esquire Attorney for Petitioners 6 EFTA00235144 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 7 of

Respectfully Submitted, THE LAW OFFICE OF BRAD EDWARDS & ASSOCIATES, LLC By: s/ Brad Edwards Brad Ed

ictims' counsel would also like to discuss possible legal responses to the Government with other victims' rights attorneys, including in particular the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys for possible legal approaches. See http://www.ncvli.org/navra.html. The sealing order would apparently block these forms of consultation, or perhap

Epstein's at- torney moving to appeal. "Any chance to stall in any way and keep the agreement out of public disclosure, they will take it," said Edwards outside court. He will have served about 13 months of an 18-month sentence. . Epstein pleaded guilty nearly one year ago to solicitation of pr

king a federal judge to appoint a receiver to take over Epstein's property to prevent him from hiding or transferring assets abroad. Ca PRINTTHIS Bradley Edwards also has asked that the receiver order Epstein post a $15 million bond to ensure money is available if the women prevail in their lawsuits seeking d

wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document, Marra ruled. "If a specific tangible need

in is asking a federal judge to appoint a receiver to take over Epstein's prop- erty to prevent him from hiding or transferring as- sets abroad. Bradley Edwards also has asked that the re- ceiver order Epstein to post a $15 million bond to ensure money is avail- able if the women prevail in their lawsuits

n's victims, attorney Brad Edwards asked to have the document unsealed as part of his federal lawsuit against the Manhattan money manager. Although Edwards and his victims have seen the agreement. Edwards s in his pleadings thai the iswerranent has "inaccurately described the agreement . creating a fa

e wants to be able to discuss the terms of the agreement with other victims and their attorneys as well as with other victims' rights groups such as the National Alliance of Victims' Rights Attorneys. The desire to discuss the agreement with third parties is not justification for unsealing the document. Marra ruled "If a specific tangible need a