Epstein Secrets

like others accused of similar heinous crimes, or (2) r appears more likely, those who chose to give Epstein favorable - "unusual," in the words of the Town of Palm Beach . .. . . I . Police Chjef - trea_tment, are exposed and held c!CCountable. From the irycomplete information I now in the public domain, the St

-105:25). 3. The State Attorney’s Referral to the Grand Jury: A Single Victim Testifies. 15. ChiefReiter’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 on

y constitutional free speech principles, as a testifying grand jury witness is free to disclose her grand jury testimony . In I Butterworth v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court, weighing the competing interests of grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment, held unconstitutional Section 905;.27’s prohibition on a witness rev

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

tatute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the e

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

asking Epstein to identify information potentially related to the case(s) including, but not limited to, all employees who performed work inside his Palm Beach residence, all other employees who came to the residence (Interrogatory Nos. 1 — 2), those who gave or were asked to give him massages (Interrogator

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

personal matters and contacts to which he attends in Florida. For example, beginning in 2002, Mr. Epstein visited his mother nearly every weekend in Palm Beach until she passed away in April, 2004. 5 As previously set forth herein, and as more fully explained in other submissions related to this case, the r

78), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein's intent in that regard, is an element of the crimes that must be prove

personal matters and contacts to which he attends in Florida. For example, beginning in 2002, Mr. Epstein visited his mother nearly every weekend in Palm Beach until she passed away in April, 2004. 5 As previously set forth herein, and as more fully explained in other submissions related to this case, the r

78), the search warrant affidavit in this case reveals knowing and reckless falsehoods and omitted material information. This is precisely the type the United States Supreme Court sought to guard against. The age of the alleged victims, and of Mr. Epstein's intent in that regard, is an clement of the crimes that must be prove

Michael I. Goldberg, Esq.-(VIA CMIECF Lawrence A. Gordsch, Esq. -(VIA CWECF) Jack Starta, Esquire Searcy Denney, Sanda & Barnhall & Stanley 2139 Pr Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -(1A U.S. MAL) KOK Robert E Camey (ret), Special Llaste• 2281 Saratoga Lene West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -

w in the State of Massachusetts and has been a member of.the Massachusetts Bar-since April 24, 1972. 2. Movant is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant desig

Michael I. Goldberg, Esq.-(VIA CMIECF Lawrence A. Gordsch, Esq. -(VIA CWECF) Jack Starta, Esquire Searcy Denney, Sanda & Barnhall & Stanley 2139 Pr Beach Lakes Boulevard West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -(1A U.S. MAL) KOK Robert E Camey (ret), Special Llaste• 2281 Saratoga Lene West Palm Beach, FL 33409 -

w in the State of Massachusetts and has been a member of.the Massachusetts Bar-since April 24, 1972. 2. Movant is also admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant desig

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: 5 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

uld pay the procurer of each girl's "appointment" hundreds of dollars. 13. Defendant designed this scheme to secure a private place in Defendant's Palm Beach mansion where only persons employed and invited by Defendant would be present, so as to reduce the chance of detection of Defendant's sexual abuse a

, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United Statcs I. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos, supra, at 2025: See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed in

I could have shown them in one day that it was impossible for me to have had sex with their client on the island, in the ranch, on the airplanes, in Palni Beach. And they would have, if they were decent and ethical lawyers, not filed that. wo on nM @ WN NNNNN NEP RPP PPB eB BP PR ue WNP OW DAYH UM BWNRO A.

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus