Epstein Secrets

June 11, 2009 motion (A-13). Epstein's counsel consented to that procedure. (A-18 at p. 9, Il. 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

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.

Dr. Burzyn- ski seek to enjoin the government from providing the records seized pursuant to the search warrant to any other agents or agencies of the United States Government or to any commercial entity or to any other entity or person. While not alleging any basis to believe that the government had made improper use o

junction claims and granted summary judgment in favor of the United States Attorney and county officials. Appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals, Wallace, Circuit Judge, held that (1) the citizen did not have stand- ing to challenge the investigation, but the organizations did; (2) there were no ex-

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

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