Epstein Secrets

onfidentiality clause, precluding it from EFTA00232246 being disclosed to third parties or made part of any public record. Federal District Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to third parties. 3. Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Judge Deborah Pucillo ordered Mr. Epstein's attorney

he court. (A-16:2; A-18:43). The court ruled that "[t]his Order is in no way to be interpreted as permission to not comply with U.S. District Court Kenneth Marra's previous a d‘rs." (A-16.3). Subsulticnt to this oral ruling, M. Epstein provided the court with a Motion for Stay (A-14). The court stayed disclosu

py of that acknowledgment to the USAO. DONE and ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 21" day of August, 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Copies furnished to: all counsel of record By signing below, 1 certify that I have reviewed and agree to be bound by

made part of any public record. Federal District Judge Marra has twice ordered the documents not disclosed to

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

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

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

he iswerranent has "inaccurately described the agreement . creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims." US District Judge Kenneth Marra ruled that the claims, even if true, haven't damaged Edwards' case. Se.'king to keep the agreement sealed. Assistant U S Attorney Dexter Lee argued

ional 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 arises in a civil case relief should be sought in that case," he wrote. Epstein, 56, is serving IS months in ja

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

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 Petitioners, 1. U

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

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Peti

rmation received concerning the Agreement. Petitioners' claim that they wish to discuss 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 consu

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 Petitioners, v. U

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

THERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioner

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