Epstein Secrets

mpiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petitioner) Spencer T. Kuvin of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. (counsel for non-party intervener,..) Honorable Kenneth A. Marra (judge, Southern District of Florida) Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (non-party intervener) Deanna K. Shullman of Thomas, Locic

rcement of Crime Victim's Rights Acts (A-1)." The victim also asked the federal court to allow her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Government had argued (A-4) — that the NPA was not a record of the federal court. (A-6) ("First, as respon

w her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Governm

Sarasota-Herald Tribune I State, 924 So. 2d 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2QQ6) 2 Sentinel Communications Co. I Watson, 615 So. 2d 768 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) 9 Wallace I Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) 21 ii EFTA00183964 Other Authorities Fla. Const. Art. I, § 23 18 Fla. Const. Art. I, § 24 2

rcement of Crime Victim's Rights Acts (A-I)." The victim also asked the federal court to allow her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Government had argued (A-4) — that the NPA was not a record of the federal court. (A-6) ("First, as respon

ORIDA JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, I JUNE 12, 2009 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, I Defendant. 11 TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE APPEARANCES: 13 14 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. Mermelstein & Horowitz 15 16 For Jane Doe

w her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Governm

Const., comes into play only when federal law clearly requires the records to be closed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.g., Wallace,. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Hous. Auth. o

h Amendment right not to do so. "Stonewalling and delaying," Horowitz said. "I'm not surprised." Horowitz said he has asked US. District Judge Kenneth Marra to order Epstein to turn over the information. A local attorney for Epstein, Jack Goldberger, did not respond to a re- quest seeking comment. E

isclosure will be ordered." Seeking to keep the agreement sealed, Assistant U.S. Attorney argued that the agreement is not part of any case before Marra. "The non-prosecution agreement has never been filed under seal in federal court," he wrote. He also denied that the agreement has been inaccuratel

ge and Wallace Chrysler Jeep in Fort Pierce. A Mazda franchise will remain at Napleton's dealership, and several brands will continue operating at Wallace in Fort Pierce. Massey-Yardley Chrysler Dodge in Hobe Sound stopped operating as a new-car dealer but plans to continue selling used cars at the

rcement of Crime Victim's Rights Acts (A-I)." The victim also asked the federal court to allow her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Government had argued (A-4) — that the NPA was not a record of the federal court. (A-6) ("First, as respon

w her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Governm

Const., comes into play only when federal law clearly requires the records to be closed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.Q., Wallace v. Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Nous. Auth.

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U

. The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by creating a victim notification requirement for plea bargains

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. U

. The presumption is that Congress intends to change the law when it enacts amendments. Bailey v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 105, 110 (2002), citin Wallace v. Jaffree 472 U.S. 38, 59 n.48 (1985). Here, not only did Congress change the law by creating a victim notification requirement for plea bargains