Epstein Secrets

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

R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palin Beach County, Florida, Defendants. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL!CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACHCOrTY, FLORIDA CASE NO.: 50-2019-CA-,014681-XXXX-MB DIVISION: AG . I MOTION OF PLAINTIFF CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT I AND IN COR

he Palm Beach Post’s Extensive 15-Year Reporting On Epstein’s Crimes. 61. Plaintiff, The Palm Beach Post, is a community newspaper serving readers in Palm Beach County and the Treasure Coast vicinity. { 62. The Palm Beach Post has been a Pulitzer Prize winner and nominated as a finalist three other times. 63. Beginn

declare, pursuant to Fla. Stat. Section 905.27(1), that it is entitled to access the testimony, minutes, and other evidence presented in 2006 to the P?lm Beach Coµnty grand jury because such disclosure would be in the furtherance of justice. Fla. Stat. § 905.27(l)(c). Because The Palm Beach Post is not seeking th

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

IDA Plaintiff -vs- B. HMARE , D2JE Defendant C4SEN'UMBER DIVISION DCNUMBER CIRCUITNUMBER: IN Tits Firmarrat Amami CIRCUIT COURT, IN AND FOR PALM BRACH COUNTY ' $02006'CR11091£IAE1QMI MCSORWAY "W" W35155 15-4/JATI. SPLIT ORDER OF COMMUNITY CONTROL I This cause coming before the C01111 to be heard, and

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

squire (via facsimile) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00180624 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF0094S4AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYIN

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

e) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00231116 day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381AXXMB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYIN

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

e) Spencer t. Kuvin, Esquire (via facsimile) EFTA00232236 day of June, 2009. IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION "W" CASE NO. 502008CF009381A>O(MB 502006CF009454AXXMB STATE OF FLORIDA, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant ORDER DENYI