Epstein Secrets

sealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions to seal the Co

erger . and Mr. Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. (; :si Shullman, Esc was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of_ Assistant State Attorney Barbara Bums was present

sealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions to seal the Co

ldberger, Esq. and Mr. Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of E.W., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of B.B., Assistant State Attorney Barbara Bums wa

9 6¢ The language of the First Amendment would seem to protect these dissidents against any abridgement of their freedom of expression—at least from the United States Government. But our history in this regard has been checkered at best, especially in the context of fear of war. Less than a decade after the ratification of t

levision), the people have voted the other way with their feet (and their remotes). The law in action today bears little resemblance to Chief Justice Berger’s “categorical...disapprov[al] of [my] theory that obscene, pornographic films acquire constitutional immunity from state regulation simply because t

d 20 Ms. 21 A. No. 22 Q. I think you told me at the time that the 23 complaint was filed or at the time that the Jane Doe 24 1 and 2 sued the United States Government which was 95 in early July, it was July 8th of '08, you don't PROSE COURT REPORTING AGENCY, INC. (561) 832-7506 EFTA00599760 Page 100 recall

can access it. 16 Q. So, if it was, as an example, if it was, 17 if you were the lead person and you invited 18 Mr. Adler and you invited Mr. Berger in and 19 Mr. Rothstein in, there, when you punched up the 20 Qtask on the screen, I would see Mr. Rothstein's 21 picture. I would see yours. I

s June 11, 2009 motion (A-13). Epstein's counsel consented to that procedure. (A-18 at p. 9,11. 16 -18.) The Judge held that neither the State, nor the U.S. Government, nor Epstein had shown why the NPA ought to remain confidential and ordered the records unsealed.9 (A-16.) It is important to note that the State

d former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, who now represents some of the women. "Everybody was in on this deal except the victims and the public," Berger said. "The public should be outraged it has gone as far as it has." A second attorney representing the women, Brad Edwards, has seen the seal

ealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions to seal the Co

ldberger, Esq. and Mr. Critton, Esq. were present on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. Ms. Shullman, Esq. was present on behalf of the Palm Beach Post, Mr. Berger, Esq. and Mr. Edwards, Esq. were present on behalf of E.W., Mr. Kuvin, Esq. was present on behalf of B.B., Assistant State Attorney Barbara Burns w

sealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions to_seal the

;Aire., Ste; 1400, West IN; ... ': ' Palm Beach, FL 33401..(4a: . ); and Bradley .11.. Ed4cliiliq. and, WIWate J. . .11 • L'; Blvd. 4 i $ .. Berger, Esq., Rothstn ieRosenfeldt Adler 40 East Las Olen 131 ..it'ulie .650, ) PortPortLauderdale, : • • .. i i 040., • r. .. • 1 1 O .. l:

ealing such documents. After hearing argument of counsel, the Court makes the following findings and rulings: 1) Neither the State of Florida nor the U.S. Government nor Mr. Epstein have presented sufficient evidence to warrant the sealing of documents currently held by the Court. 2) The Motions taseal thet

• ; ; .., : ' 1 • •• $.1 • i ht '. •• Palm Beach, FL 33401 (fax: =~; and Bradley4 • . and William J. , . • . • y llf 'I' i • . . : Berger; Esq., RothstakfRoeenlbldiAdler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd :111.; 3650, Fon Lauderdale, I li • ' I ' , jr, !. Ir: ' .:ridri Pt 43JN (taxi ba

s June 11, 2009 motion (A-13). Epstein's counsel consented to that procedure. (A-18 at p. 9,11. 16 -18.) The Judge held that neither the State, nor the U.S. Government, nor Epstein had shown why the NPA ought to remain confidential and ordered the records unsealed.9 (A-16.) 9 It is important to note that the Stat

d former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, who now represents some of the women. "Everybody was in on this deal except the victims and the public," Berger said. "The public should be outraged it has gone as far as it has." A second attorney representing the women, Brad Edwards, has seen the seal