Epstein Secrets

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 can, absent

order compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum, pursuant to motions to unseal, filed by non-parties, E.W., B.B. and Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post ("the Post"),I The confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum between th

ith notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non- party E.W., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreemen

ces" from revealing names of "those persons who have been cleared of any misconduct, as well as for those still under investigation"). Although the Douglas and Steinger cases addressed circumstances where the courts were discussing application of rule 6 to parties who, unlike Mr. Epstein, had either be

'S MOTION TO DISIMISS PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, replies to the three separate responses filed by respondents, E.W., B.B., and the Post, and responds to E.W.'s Request to Dismiss Petition for Lack of Jurisdiction as follows: The non-prosecution agreement and adde

agreement and addendum is confidential by its terms. Mr. Epstein directs this Court to review paragraph 13 of the sealed non-prosecution agreement. E.W.'s argument is also disingenuous. EW has had the non-prosecution agreement for months, yet never advanced this position in federal or state court un

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 can, absent

cuments will be disclosed and there will be no adequate remedy. Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to by proper name. Non-party interveners, E.W., B.B. and The Post are referred to as E.W., B.B. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A

ith notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non- party E.W., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreemen

who repped Epstein when the contract was signed. Douglas Shoettle. said he had no comment. Epstein is als

th to do so today. "It is against public policy for these documents to have been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. As a member of the public, E.W. has the right to have these documents unsealed," wrote former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, now in private practice and representing one of the women.

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 can, absent

ments will be disclosed and there will be no adequate remedy. I Petitioner, Jeffrey Epstein is referred to by proper name. Non-party interveners, E.W., B.B. and The Post are referred to as E.W., B.B. and The Post. All emphasis is supplied unless indicated otherwise. The following symbol is used: A

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 can, absent

notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement. (A-6). • Rather than seeking relief from Judge Marra in federal court, non- party E.W., a victim of Mr. Epstein, filed a motion in the state criminal action on May 12, 2009, seeking to intervene and unseal the non-prosecution agreemen

8, 1994. William H. Ogle, Ormond Beach, FL. W. Douglas Childs, Jacksonville, FL. Jonathan D. Kaney Jr.,

ATE OF FLORIDA, E.W., THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. E.W.'S SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, E.W., would show the Court as follows: 1. This Court lacks jurisdiction to hear this petition. The order under review is a non-final order for which no

32034, 904.261.3693 doug. wyler@comcast .-net BY: DOUGLAS A. WYLER, ESQUIRE On behalf of the Defendant/Resp

h to do so today. "It.is against public policy for these documents to be have been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. As a member of the public, E.W. has a right to have these documents unsealed," wrote former CircuitJudge Bill Berger, now in private practice-and representing one ofthe women. The P