Epstein Secrets

In August of 2009, Bob Josefsburg, who is from what I understood a very well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer that was selected by the United States Government to represent a number of the girls that had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was part of the procedure that was including the nonprosecuti

007 at a time when Mr. Edwards, and a couple days later, I did not know that there was a nonprosecution agreement that had been entered into between the U.S. Government and Jeffrey Epstein giving immunity to Epstein, four named women, and any other potential co-conspirators for sexually abusing minors over an extende

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus Go

n FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h

of the protective order barring them from publicly disclosing or discussing the terms of the non-prosecution agreement between Jeffrey Epstein and the United States Government. Jeffrey Epstein has made no response to this motion. The Government, however, contends that the victims' motion should be denied because the victim

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See e.g. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court

n FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 2 of 8 Epstein's entry of guilty pleas to various state charges and an 18-month jail sentence, in exchange for which the U.S. Government apparently agreed to defer all federal prosecution — including any federal prosecution for the federal crimes committed against the victims. At a h

eeding which itself is protected by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) remains non-public, thus effectuating the privacy concerns addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Douglas and other cases. See a Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U.S. 211, 228-30 (1979). Under Rule 6(e), only a federal court can

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

pers was then published by Beacon Press of Boston. I represented Beacon Press and, subsequently, Senator Gravel in litigation that eventually went to the United States Supreme Court. I also conferred with my teacher and dear friend Alexander Bickel, who was lead counsel for the Times in the Pentagon Papers case. Our cases shared

August of 2009, Bob Josefsberg -~ who is, from what I understood, a very well-regarded lawyer here in Florida; in fact, a lawyer that was selected by the United States Government to represent a number of the -- of the girls that had been sexually abused by Jeffrey Epstein. He was -- he was part of the procedure that was includ

tially determined who was going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. There were two attorneys who argued that case in front of the United States Supreme Court, and arguing for the Democratic Presidential Candidate, Al Gore, was David Boies. He had put his credibility on the line in arguing the Bush versus

th applicant, Mr Bary, and the sixth applicant, Mr Al Fawwaz. 9. The details of each indictment are set out below. On the basis of each indictment, the United States Government requested each applicant's extradition from the United Kingdom. Each applicant then contested his proposed extradition in separate proceedings in t

at submission, he sought to have excluded two anonymous witness statements, which had been provided by two informants, "CS/1" and "CS/2", and which the United States Government relied upon as part of their case against him. It was later revealed that CS/1 was a Mr Al-Fadl who had given evidence against the certain of the a

ce had been served. Additionally, any defendant had a statutory right of appeal against sentence to a federal court of appeals and, though rare, to the United States Supreme Court. He could also seek review of the sentencing by the trial judge within one year of the sentence being passed. 132. The Department of Justice's let

to anonymous sources in Congress or elsewhere in th nited States Government, which, however fanciful on their face and unsubs

n he has "reasonable cause to apprehend danger from a direct answer," even when that person is entirely innocent and has committed no crime.' Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has "emphasized that one of the Fifth Amendment's basic functions... is to protect innocent men... who otherwise might be ensnared by ambiguous circu