Epstein Secrets

quire your disqualification from the prosecution of these cases. (Emphasis supplied) 14. Chief Reiter’s letter to State Attorney Krischer enclosed the Town of Palm Beach Police Department’s probable cause affidavits charging Epstein and two of his assistants with multiple counts of unlawful sex acts with a minor and one count of sexual

ey Richard Tendler said. "It's a way for the prosecutor's office to not take the full responsibility for not filing the (charge), and not doing what the Palm Beach Police Department wanted. I think something fell apart with those underage witnesses." https://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/article/20060729/NEWS/190917573 3/4 NOT

e validity of an order restricting publicity because its ability to gather news is directly impaired or curtailed.” Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 4; see also Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753, 757–58 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[a]s a member of the public, [the Reporters Committee] has standing to assert [its] claim”

_paid to have underage girls and young women brought to. his home,where heteceived. :massages and sometimes sex, according to .ari investigation by tlie Palm Beach Police Department. Palm Beach polite spent months sifting· through· Epsteiifs trash and watching .his. Waterfront home, and Palm Beath. International Airport to keep

he validity of an order restricting publicity because its ability to gather news is directly impaired or curtailed.” Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 4; see also Carlson v. United States, 837 F.3d 753, 757-58 (7th Cir. 2016) (“[a]s a member of the public, [the Reporters Committee] has standing to assert [its] claim” t

8 and reprimanded her for not telling Jane Doe #19 that she would have to perform the massage topless. When Jane Does #18 and #19 left, they called the Royal Palm Beach Police Department, who referred them to the Palm Beach Police. Jane Does #18 and #19 spoke with someone there and reported what happened. After much searching, the Pa

L the pre-conviction co ext, fueled in part by a dictum in Stack Boyle, 342 U.S. 1, 4, 72 S.Ct. 1, 3, 96 L. . 1 (1951) (decided the same term as Carlson ) (emphasis in original): From the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1789, 1 Stat. 73, 91, to the present Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,