Epstein Secrets

trict of Florida and is a member in good standing of the bars of the State of New York and District of Columbia, and is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Cir

f Florida; and (2) I am a member in good standing of the bars of the State of New York and District of Columbia, and am admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Eighth Circuit, Ninth Cir

ovide electronic notification of all electronic filings to Jay P. Lefkowitz, P.C. at EFTA00728159 Case No. 9:09-CV-80591-ICAM DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at , Florida this day of United States District Judge Copies furnished to: All Counsel of Record EFTA00728160

tatute in effect at the time of the alleged criminal conduct applies. As explained by the Landgraf court, supra at 280, and at 1505,9 9 In Landaraf the United States Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and refused to apply new provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 to conduct occurring before the e

te, Defendant's position as to the meaning of the statute would prevail. See United States'. Santos 128 S.Ct. 2020, 2025 (2008). As summarized by the United States Supreme Court in Santos supra, at 2025: 3 See argument in sections (2) and (3) that follow which represent the predicate for the rule of lenity issue discussed

tion with respect to the eligibility of any inmate sentenced in this Division unless specifically stated at time of sentencing. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at west Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this the 11'" day of March, 2005, nunc pro tunc to February 1.7, 2005. • S;GNED AND DATED MAR I

y constitutional free speech principles, as a testifying grand jury witness is free to disclose her grand jury testimony . In I Butterworth v. Smith, the United States Supreme Court, weighing the competing interests of grand jury secrecy and the First Amendment, held unconstitutional Section 905;.27’s prohibition on a witness rev

from the nature of their institution,’ powers ‘which cannot be dispensed with in a Court, because they are necessary to the. exercise of all others.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991). “There can be no question ofthe inherent power of a court ‘to protect itself, and hence society, as an instru

ion testimony. An analogy can be made to cases involving impermissibly suggestive showups.3 See e.g. Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972). In Neil, the United States Supreme Court, addressing suggestive showups, noted that the primary evil to be avoided is a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Id. a

claim of Fifth Amendment privilege and must be responded to within fifteen (15) days from the date hereof. DONE AND ORDERED this August 4, 2009, in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Florida. LINNEA R. JOHIJ2UN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE CC: The Honorable Kenneth A. Marra All Counsel of Record 22 E

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

8-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03'03'2010 Page 10 of 10 (c) The remainder of Defendant's motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 3id day of March, 2010. te r "- KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: A

ess there is compliance with the applicable provisions. The procedure is mandatory and governs state and federal proceedings and has been upheld in the United States Supreme Court, See U.S. ex rel, Iouhv v. gaze% 340 U.S. 462 (1951). In addition, the Privacy Act (Title S, U.S.C., Section 552a(b), prohibits the release of age

Nos. 2-7 taken during its investigation of Jeffrey Epstein within 7 days, and any other materials responsive to the subpoena. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of > 2010. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE Copies furnished to: Counsel of record EXHIBIT "B"

on to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 162); Notice of Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA001778

D. 2. The stay of discovery pending ruling on the government's motion to dismiss entered November 8, 2011 [DE# 123] is LIFTED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Florida this 18th day of June, 2013. United States District Judge cc. All counsel 14 _SEALED /' NOT SEALED EFTA00177806

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

8-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2010 Page 10 of 10 (c) The remainder of Defendant's motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 3s day of March, 2010. / KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: All coun

ICO enterprise." State of Fla., Office of Atty. Gen., Dept. of Legal Affairs v. Tenet, 420 F.Supp.2d 1288 (S.D. Fla. 2005) (citation omitted). Both the United States Supreme Court and the Florida Supreme Court have required proof of a RICO "enterprise" that is separate and distinct from the person charged with the RICO violat

8-cv-80893-KAM Document 125 Entered on FLSD Docket 03/03/2010 Page 10 of 10 (c) The remainder of Defendant's motion is DENIED. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this 3s day of March, 2010. / KENNETH A. MARRA United States District Judge copies to: All coun

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

the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida and Jeffrey Epstein is hereby ordered to be unsealed. DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers, in West Palm Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida, this day of , 2008. KENNETH A. MARRA UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Copies furnished to: all cou