Epstein Secrets

inst the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the [Non-Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, L.M. • Epstein, Case No. 09- 81092-CIV-Cohn (S.D. Fla.) (asserting that plaintiff was "covered by" provisions of the Non-Prosec

y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig,. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have

inst the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, pursuant to [18 U.S.C. § 2255] and the [Non-Prosecution] agreement between the Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, and the United States Government"); Compl. ¶¶ 19-20, L.M. • Epstein, Case No. 09- 81092-CIV-Cohn (S.D. Fla.) (asserting that plaintiff was "covered by" provisions of the Non-Prosec

y erroneous construction of 18 U.S.C. § 3858(b) — and where rescission "would [have] restore[d] the defendant to the approximate status quo ante"); Craig,. People, 986 P.2d 951, 959-60, 961-93 (Colo. 1999) (holding that plea agreement made no unlawful promises, but concluding that court would not have

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

188 CONFIDENTIAL 09/12/2019 Agency to Agency Requet: 19-011 SDNY_GM_00331587 EFTA_002043 13 EFTA02729299 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases Craig v. Harney 331 U.S. 367 (1947) 8 Doe v. Hammond, 502 F. Supp. 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2007) 24 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1

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

public event [and] [w]hat transpires in the court room is public property." Miami Herald Publ'g Co._'. Lewis, 426 So. 2d I, 7 (Fla. 1982) (quoting Craig'. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947)). When considering a request to seal judicial records, this Court's "analysis must begin 8 EFTA00183973 with

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

public event [and] [w]hat transpires in the court room is public property." Miami Herald Publ'g Co. I. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1982) (quoting Craig'. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947)). When considering a request to seal judicial records, this Court's "analysis must begin 8 EFTA00233620 with