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

in's burden had not been met. Epstein's petition asserts that closure is necessary to protect a compelling government interest because, he claims, the U.S. Attorneys' Office — who has been notified of these proceedings and has taken no position whatsoever — has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provisi

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

in's burden had not been met. Epstein's petition asserts that closure is necessary to protect a compelling government interest because, he claims, the U.S. Attorneys' Office — who has been notified of these proceedings and has taken no position whatsoever — has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provisi

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

in's burden had not been met. Epstein's petition asserts that closure is necessary to protect a compelling government interest because, he claims, the U.S. Attorneys' Office — who has been notified of these proceedings and has taken no position whatsoever — has a compelling interest in having the confidentiality provisi