sve MOIN WASEAL NFA EFTA00183935

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE PALM BEACH POST MONDAY, JUNE 15, 2009 The Palm Beach Post ALEX TAYLOR, Publisher TIM BURKE, Executive Editor RANDY SCHULTZ, Editor of the Editorial Page Unseal the Epstein deal Arich, middle-aged Palm Beacher who preyed on girls almost 40 years younger already has recei too many breaks from the system. He doesn't deserve another. In July 2008, at the age of 55 and after paying the equiva- lent of a small country’s gross domestic product in legal fees, Jeffrey Epstein escaped federal charges and pleaded guilty in state court to a pair of charges related to his luring five girls — ages 14 to 17 — to his house. The girls undressed and massaged him in return for $200 to $300. He's serving only 18 months in the Palm Beach County Jail, and he's serving only nights. And now he wants just one more favor, When Epstein entered his state plea, the terms of his federal deal were sealed from the public. That violated normal procedures. Attor- neys for some of the victims, who ‘ have filed civil lawsuits, want that plea deal unsealed, probably because the details would help their cases, But given the nature of this case, there's also a public interest. One con- dition of the federal plea, for example, was that he take the state deal. That's why The Post also is seeking to have the file unsealed. Epstein’s lawyers, Epstein Palm Beach sex offender deserves no more breaks. of course, want it kept secret. Last week, a Beach County judge set a hearing for June 25. Epstein attorney Jack Goldberger claims that the file should stay sealed to protect the “orderly administration of justice” and “protect a compelling government interest.” Oh, and third parties might get hurt. The compel- ling interest is Epstein’s, and there is no privacy issue since the victims themselves are making the request. Palm . Beach police spent 11 months investigating Epstein, only to see then-State Attorney Barry Krischer kick the case to a grand jury. Mr. Krischer backed off when one of Epstein’s gold-plated attor- neys, Alan Dershowitz, announced that some of the victims had posted MySpace comments about their alco- hol and marijuana use, Epstein’s “best” defense has been that he didn’t know the girls were underage. “How he verified that,” Mr. Goldberger said, “I don’t know.” Investigators found a high school transcript in Epstein’s house. He didn’t know? The public should know what Jeffrey Epstein did, and what the system did for him, EFTA00183936

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE NO. 2008CF009381A DIVISION W STATE OF FLORIDA vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. MOTION TO MAKE COURT RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL Comes now the Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, by and through his undersigned attorney's, pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 and the Administrative Orders of this Court , specifically AO 2.303 and moves this Court to treat as confidential the following records. A. Adocument referred to as “Non-Prosecution Agreement" filed under seal in the court file on July 2, 2008. B. Adocument referred to as “The Addendum to the Non-Prosecution Agreement” filed under seal in the court file on August 25, 2008. 4. The above referenced documents were Ordered Sealed at a hearing held before the Honorable Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo on June 30, 2008. 2. A Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unseal Records was filed by Non-Party EW on or about May 15, 2009. 3. A Motion to Intervene and Petition for Access was filed by Non-party Palm Beach Post on June 1, 2009. 4. This Court granted Non-Party Ii. and Palm Beach Post Motion to Intervene on June 10, 2009 but took no immediate action on E. W.’s Motion to Vacate Order Sealing Records and Unsealing Records or on Palm Beach Posts Petition For Access, pending a further hearing. EFTA00183937

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

5.. The documents should remain confidential for the following reasons: a. To prevent a serious imminent threat to the fair, impartial, and orderly administration of justice. To protect a compelling government interest. To avoid substantial injury to innocent third parties. To avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in these specific type of proceedings, sought to be closed. WHEREFORE, Defendant moves this Honorable Court to enter an Order keeping the above referenced records confidential, and maintaining them under seal. | HEREBY CERTIFY that this motion is made in good faith and supported by a sound and factual legal basis. CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. WITNESS my hand and seal in the County and State last aforesaid this 11 day of June, 2009. Notary Public State of Fl My Commission Expires EFTA00183938

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE WE HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via || Mail; o Facsimile; 0 Overnight Delivery to R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney's Office-Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, Judith Stevenson Areo, Esq., State Attorney's Office- West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401, William J Berger, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394; Deanna K. Shuliman, 400 North Drive, Suite 1100, P.O.Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602, Robert D. Critton, BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER, & COLEMAN, 515 N. Flagler Dr. Suite 400, West Palm Beach, Florida 33401. this 11 day of June, 2009. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. lorida Bar No. lorida Bar No. ( ~ OBERT D. CRITTON, ESQ. CK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ F EFTA00183939

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

JOSEPH R.ATTERBURY ' | JACK A.GOLDBERGER JASON S.WEISS June 1 1, 2009 Board Certified Criminal Trial Attorney + Member of New Jersey & Florida Bars Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courhouse 205 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 RE: State of Florida | Jeffrey Epstein Case No, 2008 CF009381A Dear Judge Colbath, Enclosed please find a courtesy copy of Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to Make Court Records Confidential filed with the Clerk of the Court on June 11, 2009. Very fruly yours, Jag A. Goldberger, Esq. JAG/cg Enc. cc: Alexander Acosta, U.S. Attorney BREE S:1< Attorney William Berger, Esq. Bradley Edwards, Esq. Deanna Shullman, Esq. Robert Critton, Esq. One Clearlake Centre, Suite 1400 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00183940

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

peeey SWwos4 Perey asodoau ‘Than | | sA9UI0}3V $2838IS$ peztug BISOOy JepuexeTy IOPEE 14 "Yoeag WEY asaAA YANO anuary uryeasny osz 00+! 3NS ‘s.QUaD ayE|Jea|> BUG “ISSIM EFTA00183941

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE PALM BEACH POST . THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 2009 Judge delays ruling on request to unseal plea deal in sex case SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL im Beach Post Staff Writer WEST PALM BEACH — A circuit judge on Wednes- day did not unseal the deal that money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach struck with fed- eral prosecutors to avoid charges, opting instead to give Epstein’s lawye a chance to | demonstrate why it should remain — hid- den from public view. ‘ } dart “ Se judge le stein Colbath — ac- 7 knowledged at a hearing that Epstein’s deal was not sealed in state court in ac- cordance with the rules. “I don't see where any of the procedures were ever followed,” he said. Colbath has given Epstein's defense attorney, Jack Goldberger, an op- portunity to argue that the document was properly sealed and asked lawyers to submit briefs to him by Friday. Colbath also set a full hearing for June 25. Attorneys for young women now suing Epstein are asking Colbath to un- seal the deal that Epstein brokered with federal prosecutors. A lawyer for The Palm Beach Post also has joined in the request. “ItS a secret agree- ment. A secret, sweetheart agreement,” said former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, who now represents some of the women. “Everybody was in on this deal except the victims and the public,” Berger said. “The public should be outraged it has gone as far as it has,” A second attorney representing the women, Brad Edwards, has seen the sealed document. A federal judge allowed him and his clients to view it, but not to discuss its con- tents, Edwards said the women were “outraged” at what had been negotiated without their knowledge. A reporter asked Edwards if he thought Epstein re- ceived special treatment by federal prosecutors. “Are you kidding? It's transparent. Certainly no one else gets treated like that,” Edwards said, Epstein, 56, a reported money manager of billion- aires, is currently serving an 18-month sentence in the Palm Beach County Stockade after pleading guilty nearly a year ago in state court to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution. The saga began years ago when the Palm Beach Police Department began investigating whether young women were be- ing brought to Epstein's mansion on El Brillo Way to massage him and have sex with him in exchange for Enotes tein attorneys, in federal filings, have referred to sealed docu- ments as a deferred pros- ecution agreement with federal prosecutors and have called it “unprec- edented” and “highly unusual.” Goldberger said his cli- ent has not received any special treatment. EFTA00183942

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE PALM BEACH POST © WEDNESDAY, JUNE 10, 2009 Women want sex plea deal unsealed Their attorneys will ask a judge to open Jeffrey Epstein’s records. By SUSAN SPENCER-WENDEL im Beach Post Staff Writer WEST PALM BEACH — When wealthy money manager Jeffrey Epstein of Palm Beach pleaded guilty last year to pro- curing teehs for prostitution, his case detoured around local and gg Es state rules regarding the sealing of court documents. At a plea conference on the state charges, a judge, a defense lawyer and a pros- ecutor huddled at the bench and decided that a deal Epstein Epstein had: struck with federal prosecus tors to avoid charges should be sealed, according to a transcript of the hearing. And so it was. But Florida rules of judicial adniin- istration, as well as rules of the Palm Beach County court system, require public notification that a court document has been or will be sealed, meaning kept from public view. The rules also require a judge to find a significant reason to seal, See EPSTEIN, 4A > See past coverage of Jeffrey Epstein’s sex scandals, PalmBeachPost.com/epstein EFTA00183943

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Public has right to know details | of deal, Post attorney will claim D> EPSTEIN from 1A such as protecting a trade secret or a compelling gov- ernment interest. et no notification or reason occurred in Epstein’s case, according to court records. Epstein’s own attorneys, in federal filings, have referred to his confiden- tial deferred prosecution agreement with the US. attorney's office, struck in September 2007, as “un- precedented” and “highly cl unusual.” And it was “a significant inducement” for Epstein to. accept the state's deal, observed the state judge who accepted his plea, County Judge Deborah Dale Pucillo. Epstein now faces at least a dozen civil lawsuits in federal and state courts filed by young women who said they had sex with him and now are seeking damages. Attorneys for some of those women want his agreement with federal prosecutors unsealed and will ask Circuit Judge Jef frey Colbath to do so today. “It is against public policy for these documents to be have been sealed and hidden from public scrutiny. member of the public, has a right to have documents unsealed,” wrote former Circuit Judge Bill Berger, now in private practice and representing one of the women. The Palm Beach Post also will ask Colbath to unseal the agreement. Post attor. ney Deanna Shullman will argue that the public has a right to know the specifics of Epstein’s deal. According to various media accounts, Epstein moved in circles that in- cluded President Clinton, Donald Trump and Prince oo International Mone n of Mystery,” de. a 2002 New York mag- cane profile of Epstein, Epstein, 56, is in the Palm Beach County Stock- ade, serving an 18-month sentence after pleading guilty nearly a year ago to felony solicitation of prostitution and procuring teenagers for prostitution. He is allowed out from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m., escorted a deputy, said Palm Be: County Sheriffs Office spokeswoman Teri Barbera. During a Palm Beach Police Department _ in- vestigation, five victims and 17 witnesses gave statements. They told of young women brought by his assistants to Epstein’s mansion on El Brillo Way for massages and sexual activity, and then being Tuesd: paid afterward. At Epstein’s plea confer ence last year, his attorney, Jack Goldberger, and then-Assistant State At- torney Lanna nl approached a sidebar conference. Pucillo, who had left the bench nine years earlier, was filling in temporarily as a senior judge. According toatranscript, Goldberger told Pucillo that Epstein had entered a con- fidential agreement with the US. attorney's office in which federal prosecu- tors brokered not pursuing charges against him if he pleaded guilty in state court. Pucillo then said she wanted a sealed of the agreement filed in his case, and Goldberger concurred nted it sealed. later signed off oni The Florida Supreme Court has expressed “seri- an allout i inquiry into seal- ing procedures across state following media re- ports in 2006 of entire cases being sealed and disappear ing from court records. “The publics constitu- tional right ofaccess tocourt | records must remain invio- late, and this court is fully committed to safeguarding this right,” justices wrote in their final report. Epstein’s office on ay referred any questions to Goldberger, who declined to comment. Pucillo also has declined to comment. ous 5 TTI EFTA00183944

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

“uornyysoad Joy s1aseusa} Sutmnooid pure voyMsosd jo uoR -BYLOT]OS 0} JRA ysey AYN papeard ulaysdq “Wal} S1apISUOd 41ND ay) pue sjuoumnsie [edo} quasaid sapis Yjoq apy Suleosun ou} paypoq [eaddy Jo no} WU4SI YLnoy ayy ‘aseayas syuauMoop at Wysnos Jsog Yorag Wed oYL Joy pur urlaysdgq Suns MoU WOO Joy Skatuoyy ,TueY ayqesedas Il, asneo pynom 7 Jey) pense Aausope Suraysdgy yng ‘s}ueuNs0p aly] Jo asRayad ay} pasepso pey apni qinoito y ‘eadde sty sia -pIsuOd 7.NOd AY} a[T4YM G91 sAawony’s'n ou} UPA juoUaasTE vopnnoesosd-uou syy Jo Sujeasun oyy y90]q 0} ysenbas s,ujoysdy Ao1yjor sejoueuy peyuedd Aepseupe UO yN0d eqeyedde uy — HOWaE Wid LS3M L8A0O Ni Luodd4 OWGN 6007 ‘2 AINE AVOSUNH) = ®— LSOd HOWIE Wid FHL EFTA00183945

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE PALM BEACH POST fe. 7 * ) FRIDAY, JULY.10, 2009 EPSTEIN SEX PARTNER LOSES LAWSUIT AGAINST NEWSPAPER Pervy Palm Beach moneybags Jeffrey Epstein, who's at the tail-end of his 18- | month sentence for solicitation of prostitu- tion, is the talk of the legal world again. One of the young girls he invited up for strange sex when she was 16 lost her defamation lawsuit against The New York Post last week. Ava Cordero was asking for $100 million because, in 2007, the paper outed her as a transgender person (boy to girl) and, she claimed, made her look like “a promiscuous slut.” The paper quoted her MySpace page as saying she fantasized about being with multiple partners. A New York appel- late court sided with the tabloid, saying that Cordero herself gave the public the reasonable impression of promiscuity. Ya think? . Got a news tp? Call Jose at AS o-c-r:it IT EFTA00183946

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT DOCKETING STATEMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL (Revised as of May 1, 2001) The Court requires the following information in order to facilitate disposition of the case. APPELLANT/PETITIONER: If this case involves an original writ, is an appeal of a non-final order or is a case involving child custody, this docketing statement must be completed and returned within five days. In all other cases, the appellant must file the docketing statement within 20 days from the date of the acknowledgment of the notice of appeal. APPELLEE/RESPONDENT: Is not required to file a docketing statement unless there are amendments, corrections or additions to the docketing statement filed by the appellant/petitioner. Appellee/respondent is only required to file a notice of appearance if counsel's name does not already appear on the certificate of service. Appellee's/respondent's docketing statement, if necessary, is due within 5 days from service of the appellant’s/petitioner’s docketing statement. PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION: DOCKETING STATEMENT OF: (CHECK ONE) APPELLANT/PETITIONER _V¥ APPELLEE/RESPONDENT 1. STYLE OF CASE DCA CASE LOWER COURT NUMBER CASE NUMBER Jeffrey Epsteinff. State of Florida 4D09-2554 2008 CF 009381A 2a. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT (If party is not represented by counsel, arty sho indicate and provide accurate mailing address and ne number). Name. See attached. Bar Number. Address. Attorney For. Phone Number. Fax Number. 2b. APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL AND/OR APPELLATE COUNSEL (IF KNOWN) Name. See attached. Bar Number. Attorney For. Phone Number. Fax Number. 3. INTERESTED PERSONS: List names of all persons or entities having an interest in this matter. Please clarify whether these persons or entities are parties, lawyers or otherwise, and as to parties, designate whether appellant or appellee. See attached. EFTA00183947

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

4, JUDGES BELOW: List the name of all judges, deputy commissioners and hearing officers/examiners who were involved in this action below. Specify the judge who entered the order appealed. Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (entered order appealed) 5, JURISDICTION: State the basis for this court's jurisdiction, including the following: (1) the appellate rule providing jurisdiction claimed 9.100(c)(1) and 9.140(b)(1)(D); (2) the date of filing in the lower tribunal of the order appealed June 25, 2009 : (3) if this is an appeal from a final order, the date of the return of verdict in a jury action N/A : the service date of any Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.530 motion N/A : and the date of entry of the order deciding such motion N/A 6. PENDING MATTERS IN LOWER TRIBUNAL: Are there any matters, including counts of claims or counterclaims, still pending in the lower tribunal? If yes, please explain exactly what remains pending. Not in the criminal case. There are civil cases pending against Mr. Epstein. 7. CURRENT AND PRIOR PROCEEDINGS IN THIS COURT: List by style and case number of this court, all cases which are or have been pending before this court involving issues arising from the same lower tribunal case and the current status of same: None. Criminal appeals: List by style and case number of this court all co-defendants currently or previously on appeal to this court. None. Similar Issues: List by style and case number of this court, all cases which are or have been pending before this court which are related to this action or which involve an issue which will be similar or determinative to the issue in this case on appeal. tein, Case No. 4D09-2409. If you become aware of appeals filed subsequent to the submission of this docketing statement involving a co-defendant in a criminal case, the same controversy or parties, or substantial similar issues, please file an amended response to this question. EFTA00183948

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

8. Court Transcript: Do you intend to order any portion of the transcript for the appeal? Yes. No_ ¥ If yes, have all arrangements been made for its preparation? Yes No If yes, date ordered If no, why not? Already filed with court. Estimated date of completion: Estimated number of pages: Name and address of court reporter(s): 9. CUSTODY STATUS IN CRIMINAL APPEALS: _|s the appellant in custody and serving a sentence imposed as a result of a conviction which is the subject of this appeal? yes If so, state the length of the sentence imposed. _ 18 mon foll 12 comm 10. ISSUES: If this case involves the determination of the constitutionality of a statute, cite the statute involved. N/A . Please state in short form the anticipated issues raised. For example, on criminal issues: denial of motion for judgment of acquittal, denial of motion to suppress evidence, error in sentence; on civil issues, award of alimony, error in valuation of assets for equitable distribution, error in determining contract damages; error in admission of hearsay at trial. Error in unsealing confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum. 41. TYPE OF CASE: PLACE A CHECK BY THE MOST APPROPRIATE TYPE OF CASE: A. Civil . Domestic Relations - divorce, child custody, paternity or support . Child dependency . Adoption/Termination of Parental Rights . Professional Malpractice . Products Liability . Negligence . Contract or Indebtedness . Condominium - rules violations, developer suits oO nN DOA fF WN = . Foreclosure - mortgage, lien . Inmate Appeal - gain time, rule challenges, disciplinary action = = - Oo . Attorney's Fees = nN . All others - specify MLE T LTT EFTA00183949

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

B. Criminal 1 MTL I TL 2 3 4 5. 6 7 8 . Direct Appeal - judgment and sentence . Direct Appeal - sentence only . Direct Appeal - juvenile . Collateral Attack - (Rule 3.850 or habeas corpus) - judgment and sentence Collateral Attack - (Rule 3.800, Rule 3.850 or habeas corpus) - sentence only . Collateral Attack - juvenile . Appeal by the State . All Others - specify aling of idential fe |_non-prosecution agreement C. Administrative 4 2 3 4 | | | . Department of Professional Regulation . Unemployment Appeals Commission . Rule Challenge - specify agency . All others - specify Certificate of Service | certify that a copy hereof has been furnished by mail this Fle day of July : mail/hand delivery/fax 2009, to: See attached. (Print Name) EFTA00183950

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

2a. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OF COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT Florida Bar may BARBARA J. C ANI Florida Bar No. KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL_33401-5913 Appellate counsel for petitioner ROBERT D. C Florida Bar No. BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN, LLP 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West P. 3401 Phone; Fax: Counsel for petitioner JACK A. GOLD: R Florida Bar No. ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West P 3401 Phone; Fax: Counsel for petitioner EFTA00183951

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

2b. APPELLEE’S TRIAL COUNSEL AND/OR APPELLATE COUNSEL (IF KNOWN) WILLIAM J. BERGER Florida Bar No. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL_33394 Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener, DEANNA K. SH JAN Florida Bar No. THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW, P.L. 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, F 602 Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener, Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post SPENCER T. KUVIN Florida Bar No. LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens. FL 33410 Phone: Fax: Counsel for non-party intervener, wi. Florida Bar No. LL STATE ATTORNEY'S OFFICE--WEST PALM BEACH 401 North Dixie Highway West P; ch, FL_ 33401 Phone; Fax: Counsel for respondent, State of Florida Florida Bar No. | U.S. Attorney's Office--Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Phone: 1 Fax: EFTA00183952

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

INTERESTED PERSONS: of State Attorney's Office--West Palm Beach (counsel for respondent, State of Florida) (non-party intervener) William J. Berger of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler (counsel for non-party intervener, lll.) Honorable Jeffrey J. Colbath (circuit court judge) Barbara J. Compiani of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petitioner) Robert D. Critton of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman (counsel for petitioner) Jeffrey Epstein (petitioner) Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger & Weiss, P.A. (counsel for petitioner) of Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. (appellate counsel for petitioner) Spencer T. Kuvin of Leopold-Kuvin, P.A. (counsel for non-party intervener, Mil.) Honorable Kenneth A. Marra (judge, Southern District of Florida) Palm Beach Newspapers d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (non-party intervener) Deanna K. Shullman of Thomas, Locicero & Bralow, P.L. (counsel for non-party intervener, The Palm Beach Post) U.S. Attorney--Southern District EFTA00183953

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

State of Florida (respondent) (non-party intervener) EFTA00183954

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SOUTHERN DISTRICT 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 Counsel for i. SPENCER T. KUVIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for . JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for petitioner STATE ATTORNEY'S oasis 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K. SHULLMAN THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW, P.L. 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Counsel for petitioner EFTA00183955

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Fig | iid | kd | fa ks # ls | | 1? Bd | | E205 Sees toes 1OPEE Tad “Woeog wyed s9M OOP ang ‘ontoAY UeTeNsNy TINOS YS JOUISIG: WeayNos-soyFO s ABMIONW "SD. ey E1GS-|OvEE VOINOTS ‘HOV3E Wivd 1SaM BANG YSIOVIs HLNOS 10S YSLN3D YBIOWI4 “fOS ALINS "Wad ‘SVONVA 2 INVIAWOD STV M-NAISOIYS bOPEE 3005 diZ WOYS CSTW par ve 6002 so inf Sozsibood ob9000$ = 4 EFTA00183956

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Fourth District Court of Appeal 1525 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd. West Palm Beach, Florida 33401 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW CASE DATE: July 1, 2009 STYLE: JEFFREY EPSTEIN L STATE OF FLORIDA 4DCA#: 4D09-2554 The Fourth District Court of Appeal has received the Petition reflecting a filing date of 7/1/09 The county of origin is Palm Beach. The lower tribunal case number provided is 20098CF009381A The filing fee is Paid In Full - $300. Case Type: Certiorari Criminal The Fourth District Court of Appeal's case number must be utilized on all pleadings and correspondence filed in this cause. Moreover, ALL PLEADINGS SIGNED BY AN ATTORNEY MUST INCLUDE THE ATTORNEY'S FLORIDA BAR NUMBER. Please review and comply with any handouts enclosed with this acknowledgment. RECEIPT JEFFREY EPSTEIN I. sTATE OF FLORIDA 4DCA#: 409-2554 Receipt # R2009-1015476 Method of Payment: CK Check # 25986 PAYER i i Filing Fee: $300,00 Total: $300.00 EFTA00183957

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

cc: Barbara J. Compiani Jack A. Goldberger Robert D. Critton, Jr. ty Hua State Attorney-P.B. U.S. Attorney'S Office Deanna K. Shullman Spencer T. Kuvin William J. Berger Hon. Jeffrey J. Colbath EFTA00183958

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Fy Racal ood lB Sezs+toree IOPEE Ta “YORog Wye” 1s9\ OOF a3INS onuaay uUelTEnsny TNog OOS yOUNsIg] Weyynog aDYO S,seus0pyV "SN ySSz-600r yo AOVLSOd sn Ore Wold periow 6002/10/40 MaIISVH Orr Os CEBZESSLHLIG LOPE voHOTY 'HOvag Wve 153M "ang S34v7] HOVaG WIM SZS LOMAsig HiMNO Waddv 40 LHNOD LOIWLSIC EFTA00183959

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FOURTH DISTRICT, 1525 PALM BEACH LAKES BLVD., WEST PALM BEACH, FL 33401 July 1, 2009 CASE NO.: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. : 20098CF009381A JEFFREY EPSTEIN I. STATE OF FLORIDA Appellant / Petitioner(s), Appellee / Respondent(s). BY ORDER OF THE COURT: ORDERED that the motion to file under seal is granted. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants the Motion to Use One Appendix to Support the Emergency Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Emergency Motion to Review Denial of Stay. ORDERED FURTHER that this court grants petitioner's Emergency Motion to Review the Order June 26, 2009, that denies the motion for stay. The June 25, 2009, order granting the motion to unseal is stayed pending further order of this court. ORDERED FURTHER that within ten (10) days of this order respondent shall show cause why the petition should not be granted. Respondent shall address this court's jurisdiction to review the order as well as the merits of the petition. ORDERED FURTHER that petitioner may have ten (10) days thereafter to reply. | HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true copy of the original court order. Served: Sharon R. Bock, Clerk lani Jack A. Goldberger Robert D. Critton, Jr. U.S. Attorney's Office Deanna K. Shullman Spencer T. Kuvin William J. Berger Hon. Jeffrey J. Colbath di Fourth District Court of Appeal EFTA00183960

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

For] tas | bia | fa | OU DU af a3 ss tt sLEZBEZIES, IOPEE Ta ‘Yowog wyed Iso 00r a1INg anusAYy uUBlesny YNOS OOS PMNSIC WayNoS aHJO S,Aeus0yHyV “SD ySSz-600P 1 | GPSS Wore Haney BOOZ #40) £0 Orr’ OS ZEGZESSLHLLO Ya ISwH SOVLSOd Sf LOPES vaINOT, “HOW WIV 183) “amg S3¥v7] HoOvag Wivd SZSt LOMASIG HLNOY ‘Waddv 40 LHNOD LOIHLSIG EFTA00183961

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., . and 3 Respondents. Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case Nos. 2006 CF 9454AMB, 2008 CF 9381AMB PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POST'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI THOMAS, LoCICERO & BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shullman James B. Lake 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33301 EFTA00183962

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ......ccccscsssesesesssssescssssseersessseneneseneesseseneansaesnenaceveceeeses ii INTRODUCTION. ...c.cccscsesesessseesesescsesesesescsencsssensescssscscseseuesenesasaceeaeuausnensceeseesennsereness 1 JURISDICTION. ......ccsssscsescsessecersssscnsscsesescscsssssesssesseeseeseseneesenesensneseneeenenesseesensasensonss 2 NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT.........::s:esesesssesssssessenessseneareneensesnsseecareneessess 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS. .....:ccssssssssseseeneeeneneteeneerssnestsneesersneres 3 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT .......csscseseseseseesesrsesesesesenesensneeanssesnsennansnersasenes 7 ARGUMENT. ....ccccscsssesesesesescsesceseesscsescseasssscscesseseesssssnscsesenenesenanasacaenenensnansnasnsnsesesgres 8 I STANDARD OF REVIEW. ....sccsesssesessssesescsessscsesssveessenenesensacanenenenensnseeanessneys 8 Il. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NPA. .....essesesseseees 8 A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance. ........sessseseseessseees 8 1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly Occurred without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper Order. ..........:cseseeesesenes 11 2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any Procedures to Protect the Right of Access at all. ....cssescssesssesseeseneseseenenssnenssesnssenrenserensens 12 B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum, .......cccesessesesessesesssessssssessesssecersecesseneressesseseeacseeraesensenenennenes 13 1. Petitioner Cannot Identify a Rule 2.420(c)(9) Interest that Warrants CIOSUTrE, ....sscsssssscscersessccscsescssssesssssscsscessessssseserensessnensasensesenssssanscnsosonsesses 16 2. The Federal Court’s Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court’s Orders Unsealing the NPA. ........s00 19 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court’s Orders Unsealing the NPA........ccssesssesssseresessenesesneneseaensanensnsenensenensarensees 21 CONCLUSION ....cccscsesssesessssssesesssessssscssscnssssessacscsesscesseseeeeeessensssaesenenenanasevansesononsys 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ......cssssssesesssssessssssrsrssseseneeseenesseeeseneneeenensneeatasesnenesaye 26 i EFTA00183963

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Federal Cases rai Ha 331 U.S. B67 (1947)....ccccccsccscscccsccesssssseessssescseeesssnsauessessesnsseseasseseseseeesenseeecseeeseaeetenee 8 Doe q Hammond, 502 F. Supp, 2d 94 (D.D.C. 2007) ....c.cessessessesesssseesseseessessnenesnseneenseneeaneneensanenesanennees 24 In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1299 (M.D. Fla. VOTT) cccccccccsccecsccsesceessseesssceeeeseesesenseecteeeetseseenseees 23, 24 Lockhead Martin Corp. { Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (M.D. Fla. 2005) .......sscsssssssssessessesesssseensseseencenensssenenesnseenens 23 nian Publishing Co. @ Uni tates District Court, 920 F.2d 1462 (9th Cir. 1990) ....c..ccccccccssecseesseeseeeseeseeessceeseesensseeescseceasteaseeeeseeeeeeseeseneeee 9 US. | Rosen, 471 F. Supp..2d 651 (B.D. Va. 2007) ..scoocsssssssssssssessssssssnsnsesssseeseesssssuusssunnsnssssnssee 23 United States @ Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390 (11th Cir. 1986) oo.ccccccccccsescessesessseseeseceeeseeeeesecnavecseerseseeseeseessaseeeenseees 9 State Cases Anderson i E.T., 862 So. 2d 839 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008) ........cccccccccssesseeseeseeseesesecsseeseesseesesceeaseeeeseecsasees ees 8 Barron i Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988) .....c.cccccsccescssceessesscesseseeeseeeeseessesaeeeascsacsearseseeneseeeeeeeseeeeees 10 Combs i State, 436 So. 2d 9B (Fla. 1983) ...cccccccccsccescessecscessessecseeeeeeeneeeeseaaeeneseeessegeeeseeeseeeseeeessesesseneees 8 Doe i Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Inc., Case No. 92-32567, 1994 WL.741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) ...eceeeeeeees 17 Fla. Sugar Cane League, Inc. i Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir. Sept.20, 1991) ....ccccscsesesssesseeseeseseseseseseseeeeees 22 Hous. Auth, of the City of Daytona Beach | Gomillion, 639 So, 2d 117 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994) .....ccccccsscssesseseeeesesseseneessscneestaeeessseeseeceacseeecesees 21 In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007) Sarasota Herald Trib Div. of the New k Times Co. ndorf, 507 So. 2d cor. 2d DCA 1987) v.ccccccccccscesssscesseecessesseseessesseseenesseeseseueeaseaeeaaraesateese 9 rasota- Tribune §. S ; 924 So. 9 8 (Fla. 2d DCA 2 6) Wallace § Guzman, 687 So. 2d 1351 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) ......cccccesssescssssseseseseseesenstscsevsteeeeeseaesreceeseatensees 21 ii EFTA00183964

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Other Authorities Fla. Const. Art. 1, § 23 ..cccsssescsssssecessesesnssessseseansnsnsesssessnersesssesnenenanansnnnsnrensncenssesests Fla. Const. Art. I, § 24... Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d) Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420 vo.ccccccscesesssssessessscssenssseseessensensnastassassaseenenseenesnenessesansass 18 ili EFTA00183965

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

INTRODUCTION This appeal concerns attempts to thwart public scrutiny of how government responded to the prostitution of children in Palm Beach County. In the order at issue below, the trial court correctly unsealed a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum. A predecessor judge found that the agreement significantly induced Petitioner to accept a plea agreement that allowed him to serve 18 months in jail for luring children to his Palm Beach mansion for “massages” or sexual activity. At the time that the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively “the NPA”) were accepted for filing, no basis for closure was asserted or found. Thus, the NPA was not properly sealed, and the prior closure order was properly vacated. Moreover, no basis currently exists for closure, and the pending petition — like Petitioner’s filings below — contain nothing more than unsubstantiated assertions that confidentiality is required. Thus, continued closure is not warranted. Certainly unsealing the documents was not such a clear departure from the essential requirements of law as to warrant certiorari relief. Consequently, the pending petition must be denied. In addition, this Court should exercise its inherent authority under Rule 9.410 of the Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure to sanction Petitioner for his frivolous and bad faith attempts to cloak the resolution of the criminal charges EFTA00183966

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

against him in secrecy by awarding to Respondent, Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (“the Post”) its attorneys’ fees and costs in responding to this petition. JURISDICTION The Post adopts Respondent.’ statement concerning jurisdiction. Insofar as this Court finds jurisdiction, the Post requests that this Court expedite its consideration of this matter, so as to remedy the denial to date of the public’s and press’s constitutional and common law rights of access. Art. I, § 24, Fla. Const.; Fla. R. App. P. 9.100(d); Sarasota-Herald Tribune. State, 924 So. 2d 8, 11 (Fla. 2d DCA 2006) (rule 9.100(d) permits “expedited” review of orders excluding the press). NATURE OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT The Post asks this Court to deny the pending petition and to let stand the circuit court’s Orders dated June 25, 2009 and June 26, 2009, which unsealed the NPA, and directed the Clerk of Court in and for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida to release these records to the public.' ' Petitioner has sought review of the June 26, 2009 Order by motion rather than by petition for writ of certiorari. Though the June 26 Order does address the matter of Petitioner’s request for stay, the order also directs the Clerk of Courts to release the records, review of which should have been sought by certiorari. EFTA00183967

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND FACTS pe tet SS. This proceeding concerns the public’s constitutional and common law rights of access to records crucial to the disposition of criminal charges against Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein. Specifically, Petitioner seeks review of two orders unsealing a non-prosecution agreement and its addendum (collectively the “NPA”), which are records of the trial court below. State I Epstein, Case Nos. 06 CF9454AMB, 08 CF9381AMB. Petitioner was investigated by the State of Florida for felony solicitation of children for prostitution. (A-7 at p. 3, 1. 15—p. 4, 1. 4; A-8.) The victims allege Epstein brought and paid teenage girls to come to his home for sex and/or “massages.” (A-11 at § 6 and n. 1.) Epstein’s minor victims are numerous (A-7 at p. 20, ll. 13-18) and the case drew attention of the highest-ranking law enforcement officials in Palm Beach County. Frustrated during the course of the investigation, Police Chief Michael Reiter even penned a letter to State Attorney Barry Krischer, calling his office’s handling of the investigation “highly unusual” and suggesting that he disqualify himself from the case if the state would not act (A-11 at {| 6; A- 18 at p. 36, Il. 7-14°,) A federal investigation of Epstein’s conduct as it relates to soliciting children for prostitution ensued. 2 References to “A-” are to Petitioner’s Appendix. EFTA00183968

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Then abruptly, in June 2008, Epstein pleaded guilty in the trial court below to felony solicitation of minors for prostitution, was designated a Sexual Offender pursuant to Florida law, and was sentenced to 18-months jail and community control. (A-8.) Before accepting the terms of his state plea, Epstein entered into a non-prosecution agreement with federal prosecutors. (A-7 at p. 38, Il. 9-18.) The non-prosecution agreement and its addendum were filed under seal in the lower court on July 2, 2008 and August 25, 2008, respectively.’ According to Epstein’s lawyers (and presumably the NPA itself*), taking the state plea was a condition of the NPA. (A-7 at p. 38, ll. 13-18.) The NPA is invalidated if Epstein fails to fulfill the obligations of the state plea deal (A-7 at p. 38, 11.22 —25.) In accepting the state plea, the trial court viewed the NPA a “significant inducement in accepting” the plea and recognized that the NPA influenced the defendant to make the state plea. (A-7 at p. 39, Il. 19-21; p. 40, II. 10-13.) In considering the plea at the hearing, the court requested a sealed copy of the non-prosecution agreement and asked whether Petitioner had signed it. (A-7 at 3 The NPA and its addendum were filed under seal in this Court on July 1, 2009. 4 The Post and its lawyers have not seen the NPA, though it was reviewed, in camera, by the trial court (A-19). EFTA00183969

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

r indicated it was signed and interjected that he p. 40, \\. 7-9.) Repres A-7 at p- 39; I. the state court file. -6.) Epstein’s lawye entatives from the _~p 40, ll. 4 » (A-7 at “would like to seal the Copy: 22-23) but s Office were present at the hearing ( US. Attomey ution agreement in ling the non-prosec| d no objection to fi sealed jal court requested a state the tri Thereupon, without any further consideration, A-7 at p- 40; 119-10.) On July 2, 2008, entered an Agreed Order e non-prosecution copy of the non-prosecution agreement. ( rther proceedings on the issue, the court without any fu ed Epstein to file th seal. (A-9.) By its d did not include rt File, which allow greed Order under cution agreement an Sealing Document in Cow! agreement that was attached to the Ai terms, re order was limited to the non-pros® the closu to closure and never its addendum. The order makes no findings with respect (A-9.) The addendum was filed six weeks later, 9 August 25, 2008, expires. order of the Court with respect to closure. without any further minor for prostitution, he has guilty to soliciting 4 that — like the charge e Epstein pleaded g allege t 12 civil lawsuits been named in at leas Sine s in this case ~ is Palm Beach mansion for sex and/or “massages.” ed teenage girls to hi f the Epstein’s Epstein jur s are pending. In another Jawsuit, one © y Atleast 11 case iat | 6 (citing Doc ME stein, Case No. 08-80069 (S.D. Fla. No. 08- g0119 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Dae No.3 4 E Case No. 08- ere > See also also A-! 3); Doe No 2M F332 G&D Case . Fla. 2008); Doe e No. 4 4 pste any on n next page) 2008); Doe Epstein, C e No. 08- “80232 (S-D (Footnote © 5 (A-1 EFTA00183970

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

accusers has alleged that federal prosecutors failed to consult with her regarding the disposition of possible charges against Epstein. (A-1; A-18 at p. 22, 1. 20 —p. 23, 1. 15.)° Given the important public interest in this matter, on June 1, 2009, the Post moved to intervene below for the purpose of obtaining access to the NPA. The Court granted the Post’s motion to intervene on June 10, 2009 (Supp.A.-1 at 1.) The trial court granted the Post’s petition for access on June 25, 2009 (A-16, A-18) and on June 26, 2009 denied Epstein’s motion for stay and directed the clerk to release the records at noon on Thursday, July 2, 2009. (A-17, A-19.) Epstein’s emergency petition for writ of certiorari regarding the June 25, 2009 order and his emergency motion to review the June 26, 2009 order followed. (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 5 I. Epstein, Case No. 08-80381 (S.D. Fla. 2008); ff. Epstein, Case No. 08-80811_(S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe I. Epstein, Case No. 08-80893 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 7 1 Epstein, Case No. 08-80993 (S.D. Fla. 2008); Doe No. 6 I. Epstein, Case No. 08-80994 (S.D, Fla. 2008); Doe II I. Epstein, Case No. 09-80469 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 101 I. Epstein, Case No. 09-80591 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 102 I. Epstein, Case No. 09-80656 (S.D. Fla. 2009); Doe No. 8 | Epstein, Case No. 09-80802 (S.D. Fla. 2009)). ® See also (A-11 at § 6) (citing In re: Jane Doe, Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008)). 7 References to “Supp.A.” correspond to the supplemental appendix filed by the Post simultaneous with this brief. EFTA00183971

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Petitioner’s initial filing of the NPA under seal was achieved without any regard for the public’s constitutional, statutory and common law rights of access. Florida law flatly prohibits the standardless permanent closure that was achieved in this case. The public has a right to know what transpires in its courtrooms generally and in particular has an interest in understanding how the resolution of this highly unusual prosecution occurred. Moreover, no present basis for closure exists. Petitioner has not shown — and cannot show — that continued closure is proper. Instead, he has made conclusory assertions and relied on red herrings in attempting to keep the public from understanding how government responded to his solicitation of children to perform sex acts. The trial court, having reviewed the records in camera, saw through Petitioner’s flimsy arguments. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in ordering the records unsealed. EFTA00183972

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ARGUMENT I. STANDARD OF REVIEW. The standard of review for a petition for writ of certiorari is whether the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. See Combs J]. State, 436 So. 2d 93, 95 (Fla. 1983); Anderson I. E.T., 862 So. 2d 839, 840 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Il. THE TRIAL COURT CORRECTLY UNSEALED THE NPA. The NPA was neither properly sealed in the first instance nor is properly sealed at present. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the records. A. The NPA was not Properly Sealed in the First Instance. The NPA —a significant inducement to Petitioner’s acceptance of the plea — was accepted for filing under seal without any deference to the public’s right of access to court records. Such standardless closure cannot withstand scrutiny. Florida has traditionally served as a model for open government and courts. It is well-settled in Florida that “[a] trial is a public event [and] [what transpires in the court room is public property.” Miami Herald Publ’g Co. §. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 7 (Fla. 1982) (quoting Craig L. Harney, 331 U.S. 367, 376 (1947)). When considering a request to seal judicial records, this Court’s “analysis must begin EFTA00183973

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

with the proposition that all civil and criminal court proceedings are public events, records of court proceedings are public records and there is a strong presumption in favor of public access to such matters.” Sentinel Communications Co. | Watson, 615 So. 2d 768, 770 (Fla. Sth DCA 1993). Indeed, the people of this State added Article I, Section 24 to the Declaration of Rights in the Florida Constitution to make clear that the right of access to the records of all three branches of government is of constitutional magnitude. All citizens possess the right to “inspect or copy” such records. Plea agreements and related documents typically are public record. See Oregonian Publishing Co. { United States District Court, 920 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1990) (“plea agreements have typically been open to the public”); United States | Kooistra, 796 F.3d 1390, 1390-91 (11th Cir. 1986) (documents relating to defendant’s change of plea and sentencing could be sealed only upon finding of a compelling interest that justified denial of public access). Florida law likewise recognizes a strong public right of access to documents a court considers in connection with sentencing. See Sarasota Herald Tribune, Div. of the New York Times Co. | Holtzendorf, 507 So. 2d 667, 668 (Fla. 2d DCA 1987) (“While a judge may impose whatever legal sentence he chooses, if such sentence is based on a tangible proceeding or document, it is within the public domain unless otherwise EFTA00183974

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

privileged.”). Under Florida law, closure of judicial records is warranted only under very limited circumstances. In particular, the party seeking closure must demonstrate that: 1, restricting public access is necessary to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice; 2. no alternatives, other than a change of venue, would protect the defendant’s right to a fair trial; and 3. closure would be effective in protecting the rights of the accused, without being broader than necessary to accomplish this purpose. Miami Herald Publ’g Co. lL. Lewis, 426 So. 2d 1, 6 (Fla. 1982). This test, as well as the standard announced in Barron §f. Florida Freedom Newspapers, Inc., 531 So. 2d 113 (Fla. 1988), was essentially codified in former Rule of Judicial Administration 2.051, now 2.420, which was applicable in both criminal and civil cases. Sarasota-Herald Tribune, 924 So, 2d at 11. In April 2007, the Florida Supreme Court adopted emergency amendments to Rule 2.420 in response to Florida media reports of hidden cases and secret dockets, a process that has come to be known as “super-sealing.” In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, 954 So. 2d 16 (Fla. 2007). In adopting the interim rule, the Florida Supreme Court confirmed its commitment to safeguarding the public’s constitutional right of access to court 10 EFTA00183975

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

records, which the Court held “must remain inviolate.” Id. at 17. By its terms, Rule 2.420 does not apply to criminal cases; however, later this year the Supreme Court will consider amendments to the rule that essentially seek to apply the standards applicable in civil cases to criminal ones. See In re Amendments to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, Case No. 07-2050 (Fla. 2007). In the circuit below, however, the new Rule 2.420 procedures have been in effect since September 29, 2008. (Supp.A.-2.) In addition, the sealing of the NPA violated principles of Florida law established long before the amendments to Rule 2.420. Consequently, the unsealing of these documents was proper. 1. Closure of the Non-Prosecution Agreement Improperly Occurred without a Motion, Notice, Hearing, or a Proper Order. The non-prosecution agreement was sealed pursuant to an agreed order dated July 2, 2008 (A-9.) At the time, Fifteenth Judicial Circuit Administrative Order 2.032 applied to requests for closure of court records in the lower court. (Supp.A.-3.) The order requires a motion, notice, and a hearing, none of which occurred in this case. (Id. at §§ 1 — 3.) The order further provides that closure is proper only upon showing that the factors set forth in Lewis have been met (Id. at { 4) and that “[t]he reasons supporting sealing the file must be stated with specificity in the order sealing the court record” (Id. at § 5), neither of which occurred in this 11 EFTA00183976

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

case. Contrary to Petitioner’s assertion (Petition at 13) neither this rule, nor the common law of Florida, nor the Florida constitution contemplates sua sponte closure of court records upon simple request of the Court or any party. Nor was the closure, in fact, sua sponte, as Epstein himself requested closure (A-7 at p. 40, ll. 7-9.) and admittedly filed the NPA in the court file under seal pursuant to an agreed order (A-18 at p. 11, Il. 22-23). The agreed order (A-9) contains none of the findings required by Lewis or paragraph 5 of the Administrative Order. The closure order is invalid and was properly vacated. 2. Closure of the Addendum Improperly Occurred without any Procedures to Protect the Right of Access at all. With respect to the sealing of the addendum to the non-prosecution agreement, no procedures were put in place at all. The original non-prosecution agreement was attached to the July 2, 2008 agreed order, which allowed to be filed under seal the “attached document” only. (A-9.) It appears from the record that the addendum — which was not attached to the July 2, 2008 order but was filed six weeks later — was simply filed and accepted under seal without any order allowing for closure. Closure of the addendum was thus improper on that basis as well. The trial court properly unsealed these documents. 12 EFTA00183977

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

B. No Basis Exists for Current Closure of the Non-prosecution Agreement or Its Addendum. After the Post intervened, at a June 10, 2009 hearing on the issue of closure, the trial court asked Epstein’s counsel about the Post’s motion (A-11) specifically. Epstein’s counsel replied: If the Post’s position is the public has a right to acc — access this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct a hearing and do a balancing test where you look at whether there is some compelling government interest and that’s going to require an evidentiary hearing. So I have no great objection to filing the Request for Closure and then having a hearing in front of the Court. (Supp.A.-1 at p. 3, 1.22 —p. 4, l. 5.) Importantly, Petitioner’s counsel did not assert that he had complied with these requirements, but that he would. The Court reset the hearing for June 25, 2009. Petitioner filed a Motion to Make Court Records Confidential (A-13) on June 11, 2009. In it, Epstein cited four reasons the NPA should remain under seal: 1. to prevent a serious and imminent threat to the administration of justice’; 2. to protect a compelling government interest; 3. to avoid substantial injury to innocent 8 This assertion apparently has been abandoned by Petitioner, because his petition asserts that he has asserted three bases for confidentiality, and does not include this basis. Accordingly, it will not be addressed, except to make note of the fact that Epstein has not at any point in this proceeding identified a threat to the administration of justice, much less a serious and imminent threat. 13 EFTA00183978

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

third parties; and 4. to avoid substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law and privacy right, not generally inherent in these specific type of proceedings sought to be closed. (A-13 at 5.) The motion failed to explain how these interests were implicated, failed to address alternatives to closure, and failed to explain how closure would protect the interests. (A-13.) The lower court heard argument on June 25, 2009. The United States Attorneys’ Office was provided notice of the hearing, but chose not to appear. (A- 18 at p. 7, Il. 10-14.) In fact, the U.S. Attorney’s Office has taken no position on this matter throughout the lower court proceedings and specifically informed counsel for ll. that it had no position (A-18 at p. 7, ll. 10-14.) At that hearing, the Court found that the proper procedures to initially seal the records were not followed and then heard argument from Epstein’s counsel on his 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.” (A-16.) * It is important to note that the State Attorney’s Office appeared at the hearing for the limited purpose of objecting to the release of minor victim’s names, which turned out to be a non-issue because the Court, having reviewed the documents in camera, determined that no victim’s names were included in the documents (A-19 at p. 21, Il. 14-19.) The federal government, as mentioned above, took no position (Footnote continued on next page) 14 EFTA00183979

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. Administrative Order of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit 2.303 applies to Petitioner’s June 11, 2009 request to seal the records in this case. (Supp.A.-2.) That administrative order ~ consistent with Lewis and its progeny — applies Rule 2.420’s standards to requests for closure of records in criminal proceedings in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit. Any order authorizing closure must contain findings that one of the interests set forth in Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(c)(9)(A) is met and that closure is no broader than necessary to protect that interest. (Supp.A.-2 at { 4.); see also Lewis, 426 So. 2d at 3. Motions seeking closure must include a “signed certification by the party making the request that the motion is being made in good faith and is supported by a sound factual and legal basis.” (Supp.A.-2 at § 1.) Epstein’s initial oral request for closure failed to comply with the requirements of then-applicable law, and he has never presented a sound factual or legal basis for present closure. Consequently, unsealing the documents was fully consistent with the essential requirements of law. and did not appear at any of the hearings on this matter. Nor has either agency appealed the lower court’s decision. 15 EFTA00183980

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

1. Petitioner Cannot Identify a Rule 2.420(c)(9) Interest that Warrants Closure. Though Epstein’s belated written motion identified four interests set forth in Rule 2.420(c)(9) that purportedly warrant closure, he failed to explain — either in his motion or at the hearing — how any of them applied. Instead, Petitioner asserted closure was proper because these broad interests would be served by closure, principles of comity require closure, and because the records contain information protected from disclosure by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. Even though Petitioner now attempts to craft his arguments around the interests set forth in Rule 2.420(c)(9), the trial court cannot be said to have departed from the essential requirements of the law in holding that Epstein’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 provision of its contract with Mr. Epstein honored. See Petition at 15. Assuming such a provision exists (the Post has not seen the document), Petitioner is in no position to assert a compelling interest on the government’s behalf, given its decision to take no position on the matter. If such an interest exists, the U.S. government is the party to assert it, and 16 EFTA00183981

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

it has specifically failed to do so. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in closure. Epstein next asserts that closure is warranted to protect the interest of “innocent third parties” and identifies those third parties as Mr. Epstein’s co- conspirators. (Petition at 15). Again, Mr. Epstein lacks standing to assert the interests of third parties. Doeff. Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Inc., Case No. 92-32567, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) (plaintiff lacks standing to assert privacy interest of third party, minor victims of sexual assault by defendant’s former employee, who had been convicted) (copy attached at Supp.A.-4). In addition, even if the third parties Mr. Epstein identifies — his purported co-conspirators — were before the Court, they would have no privacy interest in matters pertaining to their criminal conduct. Post-Newsweek Stations, Florida, Inc. Doe, 612 So. 2d 549 (Fla. 1992) (Does, whose names were implicated in criminal prostitution scheme, had no right to privacy by virtue of their participation in a crime and thus their names could not be redacted from records provided to the public). Thus, the trial judge did not depart from the essential requirements of law in finding insufficient third-party interests to justify closure. 17 EFTA00183982

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The third interest Epstein seeks to invoke is his own right to privacy. See Petition at 15. While Epstein actually does have standing to assert his own right to privacy, Florida law is clear that closure is only proper to protect a “substantial injury to a party by disclosure of matters protected by a common law or privacy right not generally inherent in the specific type of proceeding sought to be closed.” Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.420(c)(9)(A)(vi) (emphasis added), Epstein argues disclosure of a plea agreement is not generally inherent in a state court plea hearing See Petition at 16. That argument is absurd. Of course Epstein’s plea agreement is generally inherent in his criminal prosecution. It is the very reason that prosecution ended, and as the lower court recognized in accepting the plea, it was a “significant inducement” to Petitioner to take the state’s deal. (A-7 at p. 39, ll. 19- 21.; p. 40, Il. 10-13.) Moreover, Florida’s constitutional right to privacy is expressly subordinate to the rights of Floridians to access the records of their government. To wit, Article I, § 23, which sets forth the right to privacy, further provides: “[t]his section shall not be construed to limit the public’s right of access to public records and meetings as provided by law.” Fla. Const. Art. I, § 23. As the Florida Supreme Court has recognized, the privacy amendment has not been construed to protect names and addresses contained in public records. Post Newsweek, 612 So. 18 EFTA00183983

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

ad at 552. The trial court, having reviewed the NPA in camera, certainly had an opportunity to assess whether a privacy interest not inherent in his criminal prosecution for felony solicitation of children for prostitution is implicated by the NPA. It cannot in good faith be argued that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law in determining that no such privacy interest was implicated. 2. The Federal Court’s Decisions in Case No. 08-80736 (S.D. Fla. 2008) Did Not Preclude the Lower Court’s Orders Unsealing the NPA."° Nor did the trial court’s rejection of Petitioner’s comity argument depart from the essential requirements of law. In the Southern District of Florida, one of the minor victims of Epstein filed a Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim’s Rights Acts (A-1).'' The victim also asked the federal court to allow her to share the NPA with third parties (A-3). Judge Marra denied the motion, finding — as the U.S. Government had argued (A-4) — that the NPA was not a record of the federal court. (A-6) (“First, as respondent points out, the Agreement was not filed in this ! The Post adopts and incorporates if’s arguments and analysis on this issue in addition to the arguments it sets forth herein. "| The Post notes that A-3 through A-5 were not part of the record below. If the Court is inclined to consider these federal court pleadings, then in fairness it must consider those related pleadings which are attached hereto as Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A.-7 of the Post’s Supplemental Appendix. 19 EFTA00183984

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

case, under seal or otherwise.”). The federal court also declined to provide any relief from restrictions on the parties’ use and dissemination of the discovery document without prejudice. (A-6 at p.2.) Petitioner argues that the Post should be required to seek relief in Judge Marra’s court. He mischaracterizes the nature of the proceedings there. There is no document to unseal in Judge Marra’s court. The NPA is not a record of that court, and thus any effort by the Post to obtain access to the NPA there would be futile, and any order requiring it be unsealed by the lower court herein does not conflict with any decision of the federal court. (A-16 at p.3.) In fact, when Judge Marra has been asked to seal records of his court that quote the NPA, he has refused to do so, and has required such records to be filed in the public court file (Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A.-7)'” Thus, though the NPA is not a record of the federal court, the federal court has rejected attempts to file portions of it under seal. As a result, portions of the NPA appear in the public court file in '2 Page 4 of Supp.A.-5 and paragraph 5 of Supp.A.-6, both publicly on file in the federal court, quote from the NPA. In addition, Epstein’s own lawyers quoted extensively from the NPA in seeking to stay one of the civil suits against him. (A- 11 at 96; A-18, p. 35,1. 18—p. > ee Ee by reference Supp.A.-5 through Supp.A-6 and Supp.A.-7 Epstein, Case No. 08-cv-80811 (S.D. Fla. 2008) at Dkt. 33 pp. 2-5)).) 20 EFTA00183985

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the federal civil litigation against Epstein. (Supp.A-5 at p. 4; Supp.A.-6 at 4] 5; Supp.A.-7 at pp. 2-5.) The proverbial cat is already out of the bag. Notwithstanding, the NPA is a record of this lower court. The lower court did not enter an order conflicting with Judge Marra’s rulings (A-16 at p. 3 — expressly noting lack of conflict with Judge Marra’s orders) and did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. 3. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 Did Not Preclude the Lower Court’s Orders Unsealing the NPA.” Finally, unsealing the NPA did not conflict with federal law. Records available under state law are sealed by federal law only when federal law absolutely conflicts with state law and requires confidentiality of the records. The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Art. VI, U.S. Const., comes into play only when federal law clearly requires the records to be closed, and the state is clearly subject to its provisions. E.g., Wallace J. Guzman, 687 So, 2d 1351, 1353 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997) (exemptions to federal Freedom of Information Act do not apply to state agencies); Hous. Auth. of the City of Daytona Beach L. Gomillion, 639 So. 2d 117 (Fla. Sth DCA 1994) (Federal Privacy Act does not exempt from disclosure records of housing authority which are open for inspection '3 The Post adopts and incorporates |B arguments and analysis on this issue in addition to the arguments it sets forth herein. 21 EFTA00183986

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

under Florida Public Records Act); Fla. Sugar Cane League, Inc. ¥§ Fla. Dept. of Envtl. Reg., Case No. 91-2108 (Fla. 2d Jud. Cir. Sept. 20, 1991), per curiam affirmed, 606 So. 2d 1267 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992 (documents received by state agency in course of settlement negotiations to resolve federal lawsuit and confidential settlement agreement with U.S. Department of Justice open to inspection because federal law did not clearly require confidentiality) (Supp.A.-8.) Federal law imposes no such preemption of the Florida constitution and common law in this case. In particular, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) does not restrict access to the NPA. Federal Rule 6(e) restrains grand jurors, court reporters, government attorneys, interpreters and the like from disclosing matters occurring before the grand jury. Petitioner — apparently the former target of the grand jury — is none of these persons. His actions in filing the NPA under seal do not implicate Rule 6(e) no matter what information the NPA contains. The lower court’s actions in unsealing the NPA likewise do not implicate Rule 6, because the lower court also is not restrained by Rule 6(e). Moreover, the information contained in the NPA does not constitute “matters occurring before the grand jury” within the meaning of Rule 6. The secrecy rule is limited to such matters for the purpose of “preventing targets of an 22 EFTA00183987

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

investigation from fleeing or tampering with witnesses or grand jurors, encouraging witnesses to appear voluntarily and speak fully and frankly, avoiding damage to the reputation of subjects or targets of the investigation who are not indicted, and encouraging grand jurors to investigate suspected crimes without inhibition and engage in unrestricted deliberations.” Lockhead Martin Corp.ff. Boeing Co., 393 F. Supp. 2d 1276, 1279 (M.D. Fla. 2005). The rule aims to “prevent disclosure of the way in which information was presented to the grand jury, the specific questions and inquiries of the grand jury, the deliberations and vote of the grand jury, the targets upon which the grand jury’s suspicion focuses, and specific details of what took place before the grand jury.” In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. 1299, 1302-03 (M.D. Fla. 1977). In other words, Rule 6 is implicated if disclosure would reveal secret inner workings of the grand jury. U.S. Lk. Rosen, 471 F. Supp. 2d 651, 654 (E.D. Va. 2007). Disclosure of details of a government investigation that is independent of a parallel grand jury proceeding does not violate Rule 6. Id. Statements by a prosecutor’s office about its own investigation, therefore, are not covered by the secrecy rule. Id. at 655. Likewise, the mere mention of other targets of an investigation does not implicate the grand jury secrecy rule. E.g., In re Interested Party, 530 F. Supp. 2d 136,140-42 (D.D.C. 2008) (government not prohibited by 23 EFTA00183988

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Rule 6 from disclosing plea agreement and other materials); Doe. Hammond, 502 F, Supp. 2d 94, 99-101(D.D.C. 2007) (same). Moreover, “when the fact or document is sought for itself, independently, rather than because it was stated before or displayed to the grand jury, there is no bar of secrecy.” In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. at 1304. Here, the Post seeks to review the NPA for its own intrinsic value, and not for the purpose of discerning what transpired before the grand jury now more than a year ago. It is clearly well within the public’s right and interest to review the NPA, given the circumstances surrounding the investigation and prosecution of Petitioner as well as the civil claims by women who say Epstein sought to make them his child prostitutes. These facts clearly constitute a proper basis for unsealing these improperly sealed documents. Finally, and even assuming for a moment that the NPA contains grand jury information — which the Post doubts — when the grand jury’s work has concluded, and the accused apprehended, the veil of secrecy no longer is necessary and safely may be lifted. In re Grand Jury Investigation of Ven-Fuel, 441 F. Supp. at 1303. Here, Petitioner has been convicted, and nothing in the record suggests the grand jury’s work is ongoing. Consequently, no basis exists for finding that the trial court departed from the essential requirements of law. 24 EFTA00183989

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CONCLUSION The trial court was correct in unsealing the non-prosecution agreement and its addendum. These materials were not properly sealed in the first instance. Moreover, Epstein has not and cannot provide any basis for closure at this juncture. The trial court did not depart from the essential requirements of law in unsealing the NPA. Its order should be affirmed, and the Post should be awarded its fees and costs and such other further relief as this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS,0CICERO & BRALOYW, PL Denna K. Shullman lorida Bar No.: James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 101 N.E. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL_ 33301 Telephone: Facsimile: Attorneys for The Palm Beach Post 25 EFTA00183990

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished via U.S. Mail to: Hon. Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney’s Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney’s Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Esq., Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; EE, Esq., 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913; Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 on this 10" BIL day of July, 2009. Attorfiey 26 EFTA00183991

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CERTIFICATE OF TYPE, SIZE AND STYLE Counsel for Petitioners certifies that this Petition is typed in 14 point E (proportionately spaced) Times New Roman. Attorney 27 EFTA00183992

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page | of 11 Report Selection Criteria Case ID: 502008CF009381AXXXMB Docket Start Date: Docket Ending Date: Case Description Case ID: 502008CF009381AXXXMB Case Caption: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Division: W - COLBATH Filing Date: Thursday , June 26th, 2008 Court: CF - FELONY Location: MB - MAIN BRANCH Jury: N-Non Jury Type: CF - FELONY Status: CLSD - CLOSED CASE Related Cases No related cases were found. Case Event Schedule No case events were found. Case Parties Seq Expn Pe eee JUDGE COLBATH, JUDGE Aliases: | | JEFFREY aaa i ~~ 3]30-JUN- [ATTORNEY |i GOLDBERGER , ESQ, [2008 | |JACK A Docket Entries http://courtcon.co. palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b.., 8/4/2009 EFTA00183993

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 2 of 11 | Restet lo Docket Jooctettye =| Book and i Page No. | Attached To: | RPT |Filing Date: /26-JUN-2008 [Filing Party: a [Docket Text: _ Fn Fling Party a JEFFREY E [Docket Text: Text: | _RSES ROH 2006CF009454AXX Fang Dew Date: [26-JUN-2008 |Filing Pa Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Docket Text: “Trane |" B TEXT - ‘SEE DOCUMENT JOESCRIPTION Fine Date: — 2008 EPSTEIN, |, JEFFREY E Filing Party: [Disposition Amount] Docket Text: [ROUGH ARREST - NO PROBABLE CAUSE FILED ~___ WOAR- WA WAIVER OF ARRAIGNMENT J Filing Party aaa JEFFREY E |Docket Text: FILED BY JACK GOLDBERG . EVSCH - HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED Filing Date: 27-JUN-2008 _ _ FilingParty: | |Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b.., 8/4/2009 EFTA00183994

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 3 of 11 Docket Text: none. peewee Filing Party: [EPSTEIN JEFFREVE SCS ——— [Filing Date: [S0-JUN-20088 |Filing Party Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: een eS CR-DAMES. PLEAD & ADJ GUILTY AS CHARGED. STIP/FOUND: SEXUAL OFFENDER. PBCJ 6 MOS WICD FOR 1 DAY, TO RUN Docket Text: CONSECUTIVE W/06-9454AXX. PBCJ SENTENCE FOLLOWED BY 12 MOS PROB. DEFT MUST REGISTER AS A SEXUAL OFFENDER WIN 48 HRS OF RELEASE. DNA SWAB. MER JsouUN-2008 __ JEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E bispestton "Amount [Docket Text: OO —$— Filing Dat Date: 30-JUN-200 2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: |Docket Text: __ Text: ee Filing Date: [30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: | Docket Text: frome, C(iCti*ds | SORC - SENTENCE ORDER - | CONTINUED 5 Filing Date: __|30-JUN-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183995

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 4 of 11 Docket Text: none. | [Filing Date: _}30-JUN-2008 — Filing Party: _ EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: [DispositionAmount:} or [mis-rucasneeT.——SS—~sdS~“‘S*S*~*~*~*~S™S Filing Date: [30-JUN-2008 — | Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREVE SCS [26 [Giss-GUIDELINEScoresHeEeT | = sd [Filing Date: [30-JUN-2008 _ oe Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E isposition Amount: \D Docket Text. none | OAFC - ORDER ASSESSING FEES/COST Filing Date: 30-JUN-2008__ ~ __] iling Party: [EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: i (JUDGE PUCILLO FOR MCSORLEY) IN THE AMOUNT OF $473.00 AS CONDS OF PROB. MER iling Date: [01-JUL-2008 iling Party: PSTEIN, JEFFREY E ' x o - =j i) * oo , | ! | : | oln ag x a /}o ajc. @\o x |S tly 3 r-) < S > | RECOMMIT RCMIT - RECOMMITMENT iling Date: 01-JUL-2008 iling Party: r — 7 ~ oln = i] ° @ = ° s > 3 re} < 3 7 re) ° o = 13 4 i) * oo CLSD - CLOSED CASE http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183996

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 5 of 11 Filing Date: FFiling Party: { [Docket Text: x [Filing Date: [44-JUL-2008t*” 7 | |Filing Party: |EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E \Disposition Amount: A Payment of -$473.00 was made on receipt CFMB30200. From I Filing Date: _ 21-JUL-2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amoun Amount: a |(JUDGE MCSORLEY) OF PROBATION..NUNC PRO TUNC 6/30/08 | 5 —*|PROC- CRT REPORTER | TRANSCRIPT OF Filing Date: |22-JUL- 2008 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition / Amount: ext: —_ [PLEA CONFERENCE, TAKEN 6/30/08 __ [Filing Date: Date: 04- DEC- 2008 Bloreaitioe Roman Party: ee JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: | Amount} — —i—i—‘“—sS—S———(Csi‘SsSSCSCid TO CLARIFY SENTENCE TO CORRECT SCRIVENER'S ERROR |FILED BY JACK GOLDBERGER Sn Ps AGOR - AGREED ORDER | IF iling Date: }04-MAY-2009 rg Pas — Party: Paes ree JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: | Amount} sss—“—s—s—sSSS—C—C“‘Ci‘SsSCsS (JUDGE COLBATH) THAT THE ORDER OF COMMUNITY Docket Text: CONTROL IS CORRECTED TO DELETE SPECIAL CONDITION __|#26 AND #27. http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183997

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 6 of 11 12-MAY-2009 ees See —__________| JEFFREY E (NONPARTY E.W'S) TO VACATE ORDER SEALING RECORDS | AND UNSEAL RECORDS. ~ JORSH - ORDER SETTING HEARING Filing Date: 15-MAY-2009 |Filing Party: a JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount} si—(‘“<“<CS;w”w”s:*~<S:s*é‘:;*s~*™Y Filing Party: isposition Amount] s—<“—sSSSOSC‘Cs‘“‘“‘“‘S;SSC*” Docket Text: | SET FOR 5/29/09 RE:MOTION TO VACATE ORDER TO SEAL AND | | UNSEAL RECORD ~TEVSCH - HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED [Filing Date: 19-MAY-2009 Docket Text: fii [Filing Party: a Docket Textron fo!” 40. ~*|NOH- “NOTICE OF HEARING [Filing Date: _]26-MaY-2009 __ Filing Party: - JEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E a Docket Text: __ [SET FOR 5/29/09 10:30 — Docket Text: [12___] PONG - PLEA OF NOT GUILTY _ Filing Date: 29-MAY-2009 [Filing Party: lEPSTEIN, JEFFREYE =a Amount: [Docket Text: Text: Filing Date: eNO 2009 Filing Party: ——————— NON PARTY 'S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SEALING |RECORDS ANUUNSEAL RECORDS _ EVCAN - EVENT http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00183998

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 7 of 11 CANCELLED/SETTLED iling Date: [o1-JUN-2009 iling Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E | i =) ° ° x i] -~ + @ x - TRNOH - RE-NOTICE OF HEARING iling Date: _|01-JUN-2009 — iling Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E isposition Amount} SETTING CASE FOR OTHER HEARING ON 6/10/2009 AT 10:30 |AM FILED BY BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. RE: NON PARTY “S MOTION TO VACATE ORDER SEALING RECORDS AND UN L RECORDS, HEARING SEET FOR 5/29/2009 IS CANCELLED 3. |MOT-MOTION 03-JUN-2009 — Filing Party: 5 le EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: odes Toate TO VACATE ORDER SEALING RECORD AND UNSEAL RECORDS | |FILED BY BRADLEY EDWARDS, ESQ. =. = ; ; | Oo ° ° x © - = ® x - ) . i} iling Date: nT | ] ; [Filing Date: |03-JUN-2009 _ - | [Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Docket Text: PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION TO INTERVENE AND PETITION | | joes : |FOR ACCESS FILED BY DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQ. | Filing Date: _ [10-JUN-2009 a | Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E |Disposition Amount: CR-BELTRAN. MOTION TO INTERVENE-GRANTED. NO ACTION |Docket Text: ON MOTION TO UNSEAL. RESET FOR MOTION HRG ON 6/25/09. BLE Filing Date: _|10-JUN-2009 Filing Party: |EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E |Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b.., 8/4/2009 EFTA00183999

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 8 of 11 Docket Text: Text: (COLBATH) [Filing Date: | 10-JUN-200 2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [aoe |Filing Date: | 10- JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: =a - HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED a Date: ~_[14-JUN-2009 ~ DocketText: none] ————— Disposition Amount ‘Amount TO MAKE COURT RECORDS CONFIDENTIAL. FILED BY J. Docket Text: JGOLDBERGER, ESQ [15-JUN-2009 a Party: — JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: Amount} ss—‘“—s—s‘“‘“‘; TO INTERVENE AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW. Docket Text: =| FILED BY S. KUBIN, ESQ EVSCH - HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED fing re—— http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184000

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

_- Not an Official Document Page 9 of 11 EVHLD - EVENT HELD iling Date: [25-JUN-2009 iling Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Docket Text: CR-WIGGINS (COLBATH) DEFT PRES W/J.GOLDBERGER, ext GRANTED, CASE RESET FOR MOTION TO STAY DISCLOSURE | | EVSCH - HEARING EVENT SCHEDULED Filing Date: [25-JUN-2009 _ _ | FilingParty: | Disposition Amount} [Docket Text: __ | TO STAY DISCLOSURE ; | 20 _[OEF-COURTEVENTFORM Filing Date: __—_—_—([25-JUN-2009 ; _ J [Disposition Amount} m1 ‘[wor-MoTONSS—SdS—~—S———COCOC~C~CS [Filing Date: —*|25-JUN-2009,———s—“‘“‘C*s*s*s*s*S*~*Y Filing Party: [EPSTEIN JEFFREYE isposition Amount: TO STAY DISCLOSURE OPF THE NON- PROSECUTION AGREEMENT AND ADDENDUM PENDING REVIEW. FILE BY R CRITON, PA EVHLD - EVENT HELD iling Date: _|26-JUN-2009 — | iling Party: |EPSTEIN, JEFFREYE Disposition Amount: ie] ° iz] x ® - =4 | o x st | | CR-WIGGINS. MOTION TO STAY, DENIED. WRITTEN ORDER TO FOLLOW. DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION ARE DELAYED UNTIL NOON ON THURSDAY 02-JUL-2009. MOTION TO COMPEL THE DEFT TO POST BOND - DENIED. Docket Text: Filing Date: 26-JUN-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach.fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184001

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

- Not an Official Document Page 10 of 11 FOR ATTY'S FEES AND COSTS. FILED BY D. SHULLMAN, PA Docket Text: ox___Jerrcourreventroms J FiingDater*dseevuN2000——SSSC~S~SCSCSCSCSCSCS ————__——_— [Filing Date: —_ ___ ]26-JUN-2009 oe ) | [Filing Party: _|EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E_ pisperiton eT Docket Text: (JUDGE COLBATH) THAT THE MOTIONS TO SEAL THE COURT RECORDS ARE DENIED. THE MOTIONS TO INTERVENE ARE |GRANTED. THE MOTION TO UNSEAL THE DOCUMENTS IS GRANTED. ___ Filing Date: [29-JUN- 2009 Filing Party Party: lEPSTEIN, _ JEFFREY E MOTION TO STAY AND SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF LAW. [Docket Text: JFILED BY S. KUVIN, ESQ [Filing D: Date: _ /29- JUN-2009- [Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: Docket Text: |(COLBATH) TO STAY DISCL DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT PROC - CRT REPORTER __ [TRANSCRIPT OF |Filing Dé Date: 01-JUL-2009 Filing Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Dispontion Amount Amount: Docket Text: [PROCEEDINGS BEFORETHECOURT, [27 PROC - CRT REPORTER [TRANSCRIPT OF 01-JUL-2009 ine Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184002

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

_- Not an Official Document Page 11 of 11 Disposition Amount: [Docket Text: PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT [o2-JUL-2009 ine Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: | THAT THE MOTION TO FILE UNDER SEAL |S GRANTED. ORDERED FURTHER THAT THIS COURT GRANTS THE MOTION TO USE ONE APPENDIX TO SUPPORT THE EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND EMERGENCEY MOTION TO REVIEW DENIAL OF STAY. ORDERED FURTHER THAT THIS COURT GRANTS PETITIONERS EMERGENCEY MOTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER JUNE 26, 2009, THAT DENIES THE MOTION FOR STAY. THE JUNE 25, 2009 ORDER GRANTING THE MOTION TO UNSEAL IS STAYED PENDING FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT. ORDERED FURTHER THAT WITHIN | TEN (10) DAYS OF THIS ORDER RESPONDENT SHALL SHOW | CAUSE WHY THE PETITION SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED. RESPONDENT SHALL ADDRESS THIS COURTS JURISDICTION TO REVIEW THE ORDER AS WELL AS THE MERITS OF THE PETITION. ORDERED FURTHER THAT PETITIONER MAY HAVE TEN EN (10) DAYS THEREAFTER TO REPLY. [Filing Date: _Jos-JUL-2009 2009 Bier ee Amount Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: | NONPARTY .“S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS FILED E BY W. BERGER Filing Date: [os-. JUL-200 2009 3 Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E [Disposition Amount: | Amount: (NTERVENER'S) MOTION TO STAY AND SUPPORTING | MEMORANDUM OF LAW. FILED BY S. KUVIN, ESQ : Jos-ut-2009 Fine Party: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY E Disposition Amount: DocketText | Docket Text: http://courtcon.co.palm-beach. fl.us/pls/jiwp/ck_public_qry_doct.cp_dktrpt_docket_report?b... 8/4/2009 EFTA00184003

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 1S: 22 FAX USAO WPB, 0 2008 SSeS Se Loctcend° "lll 7-113 poezsout $2837 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2584 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, MB NEWSPAPERS, INC., , and Respondents. Pending in the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida, Case Nos. 2006 CF 9454AMB, 2008 CF 9381AMB PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC. d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POST'S MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS THOMAS, LoCICERO & BRALOW PL Deanna K. Shullman James B. Lake 101 NE. 3rd Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft, Lauderdale, Florida 33301 EFTA00184004

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15;22 FAX USAO WP, 004. @7-20-'09 14:22 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO T-113 poes/eo? £9837 RESPONDENT PALM BEACH POST’S MOTION FOR APPELLATE ATTORNEYS’ S AND COSTS Pursuant to Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.400 and 9.410 and Administrative Order Number 2.303 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc., d/b/a The Palm Beach Post (the “Post”) moves this Court for an award of attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with this review proceeding. In support thereof, the Post states: 1. The Post is a daily newspaper that has covered this matter and related proceedings. In an effort to inform its readers concerning these matters, the Post relies upon (among other things) law enforcement records and judicial records. 2. OnJune 10, 2009, the trial court granted the Post’s Motion to Intervene in this action for the purpose of seeking access to court records. Specifically, the Post sought access to a non-prosecution agreement that was docketed on July 2, 2008, and an addendum docketed on August 25, 2008. 3. On June 25, 2009, the trial court heard oral argument on the Post’s (and other non-parties’) motions. The Court found that the documents had not properly been sealed in the first instance and further denied Petitioner Jeffrey Epstein’s Motion to Make Court Records Confidential dated June 11, 2009. EFTA00184005

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15:23 FAX lial USAO WPI 05 @7-20-'89 14:22 FRON- S & LOCICERO T-113 pos sour f-837 4. The Postis entitled to its fees and costs in this matter pursuant to Administrative Order Number 2.303 of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida.’ Specifically, that order allows sanctions to be imposed against the moving party “if a motion to seal is not made in good faith and is not supported by a sound legal and factual basis.” Admin. Or. 15” Jud. Cir. Fla. 2.303. 5. The Post also is entitled to fees and costs in this matter pursuant to Florida Rule of Judicial Administration 9.410, which gives appellate courts discretion to impose sanctions if an appeal “presents no justiciable question and is so devoid of merit on the face of the record that there is little prospect it will ever succeed.” E.g., Visoly i Sec. Pac. Cred. Corp., 768 So. 2d 482, 490-91 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000) (citing Fla. R. App. P. 9.410). Frivolous appeals include those in which a case is found: a. tobe completely without merit in law and not supported by a reasonable argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law; b. to be contradicted by overwhelming evidence; c. as having been undertaken primarily to delay or prolong the resolution of the litigation, or to harass or maliciously injure another; or d. as asserting material factual statements that are false. Id, at 491. ' A copy of Administrative Order 2.303 is attached at Tab 2 to the Post’s Supplemental Appendix, which was filed with its response brief. EFTA00184006

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15;23 FAX Lala USAO WP) M006. @7-28-'@9 14:22 FROM-THOMAS & LOCICERO T-113 poas/wur F-937 6. In this case, Mr. Epstein's certiorari petition — like his initial filing of these documents under seal and his June 11, 2009 Motion to Make Court Records Confidential — was neither made in good faith nor supported by a sound legal and factual basis. The certiorari petition asserted three interests that ostensibly would be protected by closure but cited no record evidence in support of that assertion. Indeed, both in his motion below and at the hearing on the motion, Epstein made no genuine effort to demonstrate by evidence how and why any material interests would be served by closure. Instead, Epstein’s arguments addressed extraneous, inapplicable issues that did not support closure and demonsrated his lack of good faith in bringing his motion. Moreover, Epstein’s assertion that the tria] court’s orders contradicted and were preempted by federal court rulings was simply false. Epstein likewise failed to substantiate his arguments in this proceeding, instead again relying on red herrings and unsubstantiated blanket assertions to support his baseless claim that closure is or was proper in this case. 7. Rather, it appears Epstein opposed unsealing of these records simply for the purpose of shielding from public view documents material to the resolution of criminal charges against him for soliciting children for prostitution. In other words, the petition to this Court was merely a ploy intended to delay the public access to judicial records that that the Florida Constitution and common law guarantee. EFTA00184007

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15:23 FAX <a USAO WP ‘ 007 os 2 es = Locrceno lll 7-113 Povs/ewr toss 8. Insum, Epstein’s arguments for restricting access to his non- prosecution agreement and its addendum are without merit, Epstein’s petition to this Court was likewise without support in fact or law, and the Post is entitled to an award of its fees and costs in defending its rights of access. WHEREFORE, the Post respectfully requests that this Court award to it its fees and costs and grant such other relief as the Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL F)frida Bar — James B. Lake Florida Bar No.: 101 NE. Third Avenue, Suite 1500 Fort Laud Telephone: Facsimile: deanna.shullman@tlolawfirm.com Attomeys for The Palm Beach Post EFTA00184008

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15:23 FAX USAO WPI 008 Po an | n-113 Paa7/ao? F937 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished U.S. Mail to: Hon. Jeffrey Colbath, Palm Beach County Courthouse, 205 N. Dixie Highway, Room 11F, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; and via facsimile and U.S. Mail to: R. Alexander Acosta, United States Attorney’s Office - Southern District, 500 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Barbara Burns, Esq., State Attorney’s Office - West Palm Beach, 401 North Dixie Highway, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq., Atterbury Goldberger, et al., 250 S. Australian Ave., Ste. 1400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; Robert D. Critton, Esq., Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman, 515 N. Flagler Drive, Suite 400, West Palm Beach, FL 33401; iii Esq., 501 S. Flagler Drive, Suite 503, West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913; Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq., Leopold-Kuvin, P.A., 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410; and Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. and William J. Berger, Esq., Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 on this 20th day of July, 2009. bik EFTA00184009

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

oor WPB CONFRM :22 FAX USAO ___07/20/2009 15:22 United States Attorney’s Office Southern District of Florida 500 S. Australian Ave. Suite 400 West'Palm Beach, FL 33401-6235 DATE: /- 20 - TO: ORGANIZATION: FAX #: SUBJECT: FROM: x) NUMBER OF PAGES, INCLUDING THIS PAGE: 74 OMEN J ~ Original document: To follow via regular mail . To follow via Federal Express To follow via hand delivery ¥% Nothing to follow, FAX = original EFTA00184010

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

07/20/2009 15:22 FAX USAO WP, . 002 87-20-'09 14:21 lel & LOCICERO PTT td] Tolis power sss: &|BRALOW 400 N. DriveeSvite 1]00eTampa, FL 33602 Toll Free: = facsimile transmittal To: Marilyn, Judicial Assistant to Judge FAX Colbath ____] R. Alexander Acosta, Esq., USAO Barbara Burns, Esq., ASAO Jack Alan Goldberger, Esq. Bradley J. Edwards, Esq. William J. Berger, Esq. Robert D. Critton, Esq. Spencer T. Kuvin, Esq. ET. From: Deanna K, Shuliman, Esq. Date: Re: State | J, Epstein Pages; 7 [Urgent] | ForreviewL] | Pleasecomment(] | Please see attached . CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT This electronic message transmission contains information from the law firm of Thomas, LoCiccro & Bralow PL and is confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entiny oamed above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that ay disclosure, copying, distributi contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this clecwonic Uangmission in error, please Nowy us by telephone immedistely. Thank you for your cooperation. IRS Circular 230 Disclosure, To the extent this correspondence contains federal tax advice, such advices was not inicnded to be used, and cannot be used by amy taxpayer, for the pupose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (i) promoting, marketing, or recommending wo another pay any transaction or mamer addressed herein. If you would like us to prepare written wx advice designed to provide penalty protection, please contact us and we will be happy to discuss the mamer with you i more detail confidential EFTA00184011

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT JEFFREY EPSTEIN, CASE NO. 4D09-2554 PALM BEACH COUNTY Petitioner, L.T. CASE NO. 2008 CF 009381A STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. AGREED MOTION TO FILE ONE REPLY SUPPORTING PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI AND FOR THE TIME TO RUN FROM SERVICE OF THE LAST-FILED RESPONSE Petitioner, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, requests this Court’s permission to file one reply supporting his petition for certiorari to the three separate responses filed by respondents and for the time to run from service of the last-filed response, for the following reasons: 1. Mr. Epstein filed an Emergency Petition for Certiorari to review an order compelling disclosure of a confidential federal non-prosecution agreement and addendum. EFTA00184012

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

2. On July 1, 2009, this Court ordered respondent to show cause within 10 days why the petition should not be granted. This Court allowed Mr. Epstein 10 days to reply. 3. Three groups of respondents filed responses: (1) | - (2) i: and (3) Palm Beach Newspapers, Inc. d/b/a Palm Beach Post (“the Post”). Each respondent is represented by different counsel. The responses were served by mail and on different days. 4. Due to the overlap of arguments in the three responses, it would benefit the parties and this Court if Mr. Epstein filed one reply to the three responses. Accordingly, Mr. Epstein requests permission to file one reply to the three responses. Mr. Epstein requests this Court to order that the reply is due 10 days from service of the last-filed response. Opposing counsel has contacted counsel for respondents (William J. Berger for a: Diana L. Martin for i. and Deanna K. Shullman for the Post), who have all advised they have no objection to this motion. 2 EFTA00184013

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Oral ant I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been sent by mail this /4@< day of July, 2009, to: U.S. Attorney’s Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 WILLIAM J. BERGER ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER 401 East Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Counsel for =. SPENCER T. KUVIN DIANA L. MARTIN LEOPOLD-KUVIN, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Counsel for a. State Attorney’s Office-West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FL 33401 DEANNA K, SHULLMAN 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P. O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, FL 33602 Counsel for The Palm Beach Post HONORABLE JEFFREY COLBATH 15th Judicial Circuit Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ROBERT D. CRITTON of BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER of ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and EFTA00184014

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

LS BARBARA J. COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 Counsel for Petitioner hse depen Ohne WALSH ) rida Bar No. ii EFTA00184015

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

KKREUSLER-WALSH, CoMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. SUITE S03, FLAGLER CENTER 50! SOUTH FLAGLER DRIVE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 3340!1-S913 Sel rates BEE 02 1P $ 000.449 my 0004162054 JUL 14 2009 Ei MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 33401 ice-Southern District U.S. Attorney's 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 cozs LeVbadbastsHisssodd tssabdtbabddhsdbsslbl EFTA00184016

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, Respondents. / i's MOTION TO FILE PORTION OF RESPONSE UNDER SEAL Respondent, ma. moves to file under seal a portion of her response (dealing with this Court’s lack of jurisdiction) to the petition for writ of certiorari, on the following grounds: In a portion of her response, attached hereto in the sealed envelope, a. discusses page-by-page the sealed document, the Non-Prosecution Agreement. Public disclosure of this portion of | response would violate this Court’s order staying disclosure of the NPA. For this reason, a. moves to file the attached under seal. Copies of the sealed portion have been served only on the attorneys for petitioner and the U.S. Attorney. EFTA00184017

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The undersigned counsel spoke with WT Ey attorney for petitioner, and represents that she does not oppose this motion to file under seal. | HEREBY CERTIFY that a correct copy of the foregoing has been served by mail this [3 day of July, 2009, on the parties listed below. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for ma. 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone Telecopi 4) 527-8663 By: Wifiam J. Berger Florida Bar No. SERVICE LIST Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, F] 33401-5913 Deanna K. Shullman 400 North {J Drive, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 Tampa, Fl 33602 EFTA00184018

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Spencer T. Kuvin Leopold- Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Robert D. Critton of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 USS. Attomey’s Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 State Attorney’s Office- West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 EFTA00184019

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, WL. THE PALM BEACH POST, B.B, Respondents. / H's RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR CERTIORARI’ Respondent, i. would show this Court as follows: 1. Introduction: In an unprecedented request that should shock the conscience of this Court, a convicted child sex offender seeks to conceal from the public the details of his deal with the U.S. Attorney (filed in the lower court) that led him to plead guilty to state charges of procuring a minor to engage in prostitution (a'2nd degree felony) and felony solicitation of prostitution (a 3rd degree felony). His request would make a sham of the public’s state ! a. has also filed herewith under seal a request to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction. That response is filed under seal because it discusses page-by-page the sealed document. EFTA00184020

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

constitutional right to open government. The lower court properly denied this attempt. This Court, it is respectfully submitted, should deny the petition for certiorari and vacate the order staying disclosure of the sealed documents. || is one of three respondents to the petition for writ of certiorari. The other two, The Palm Beach Post and a. are filing their own responses. The respondents have tried not to repeat the arguments of each other, i. limits her response here to arguments in the petition based on certain federal court rulings. i. incorporates by reference the other responses. The proceedings that have led to the petition for writ of certiorari before this Court began with | May 12, 2009 motion below to vacate the Agreed Order Sealing Document entered by the trial court on July 2, 2008 at the plea and sentencing hearing in the state court criminal proceedings against petitioner. The Agreed Order authorized the filing under seal of the Non-Prosecution Agreement (“NPA”) between petitioner and the United States. a. also moved to unseal an Addendum to the NPA that was sealed on August 23, 2008 without any hearing or court order whatsoever. EFTA00184021

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The Palm Beach Post and || were granted leave to intervene and file their own motions similar to Gi :. The lower court, after two hearings, granted the motions and ordered the NPA and Addendum to be unsealed. Petitioner seeks review of that order and the order denying his motion to stay pending appellate review. For the reasons stated below and in the other responses, it is submitted his requests should be denied. 2, Judge Marra expressly authorized the lower court to resolve the issue of whether the state court records should be unsealed. Petitioner places great emphasis on rulings entered by United States District Judge Kenneth Marra, asserting that the order under review here “violated” those rulings. In fact, at a June 12, 2009 hearing” attended by petitioner’s counsel, Judge Marra expressly authorized the lower court, the Honorable Judge Jeffrey Colbath, to resolve the issue of whether the state court records should be unsealed. Responding to a request that he look at the NPA in camera, Judge Marra stated: THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat [sic] will resolve this issue for me. 2 The hearing was in the federal civil lawsuits against petitioner. 3 EFTA00184022

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn’t, Your Honor, I believe we are allowed to show it to you. THE COURT: I’ll tell you what: I’ll wait for Judge Colvat [sic] to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it submitted to me in camera. wi .-1°, page 42, lines 8-15(emphasis added).) All of petitioner’s assertions that Judge Colbath’s order under review here “violated” Judge Marra’s orders, that the lower court gave only “lip service” to Judge Marra, that the supremacy clause and the doctrine of federal grand jury secrecy are violated, are all shown by the above quotes to be false assertions. Judge Marra looked forward to a resolution by the lower court of what is purely a state law issue: should these state court records be unsealed? 3. The federal court orders do not support the petition and in fact undermine it. Even if we were to ignore Judge Marra’s quotes above, his written orders do not support the petition and in fact undermine it. The first federal order petitioner relies on is an “Order To Compel Production And Protective Order” dated August 21, 2008. The second is an “Order” dated February 12, 2009. (Copies, respectively, are A-2 and A-6 in petitioner’s Appendix.’) > Reference to ls Appendix is by <> 4 EFTA00184023

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

These orders were entered in a proceeding brought by two of petitioner’s victims, Jane Does 1 and 2,° against the United States under the federal Crime Victim’s Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3771. Petitioner was not a party to the proceeding. (A-1.) That proceeding is separate from the federal damages actions brought by petitioner’s victims. It should also be noted that there has never been a federal court prosecution of petitioner. There was no federal indictment or information filed. In the proceeding where Judge Marra entered the two orders relied on by petitioner, the Jane Does sought to obtain production directly from the files of the U.S. Attorney of a copy of the NPA. They were not asking Judge Marra to “unseal” a state court record. Thus, the context of Judge Marra’s two orders was a proceeding by two private citizens solely against the United States to get a federal judge to order the federal prosecutor to produce a document directly from the federal prosecutor’s files, not to unseal state court records. The factors going into this extraordinary request—to order the federal prosecutor to turn over documents directly from the files of the prosecutor--are not at all relevant to the purely state law issues before this Court on whether a a 4 Reference to petitioner’s Appendix is by: “(A-__).” 5 Undersigned’s firm represents both Jane Does, filed the papers giving rise to the orders and attended the hearings referenced therein. 5 EFTA00184024

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

document was improperly sealed by a state court and should be unsealed by that court. The issues before this Court must be resolved by interpreting and applying the state constitution, state open government policies, state rules of judicial administration and the administrative orders of the state circuit court below. They have nothing whatsoever to do with the federal government. In the August 21, 2008 order, Judge Marra granted the Jane Does’ ore tenus motion seeking production of the NPA directly from the US. Attorney, but with restrictions. He ordered the U.S. Attorney to produce a copy of the NPA to Jane Does’ attorneys under a nondisclosure restriction. Notably, the order makes no reference whatsoever to the state court order sealing the NPA in the state court record (even though the state court order (A-9) had already been entered on July 2, 2008) or to the fact that the NPA was already sealed in the state court file (at the plea colloquy on June 30, 2008). That is because the dispute before Judge Marra solely involved two crime victims seeking a document directly from the files of the US. Attorney, not from the state court file, and had nothing to do with unsealing state court records. The second order entered on February 12, 2009 was on the Jane Does’ written motion to remove any restrictions on disclosure so their attorneys EFTA00184025

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

could discuss the NPA with third parties. Again, the context was two crime victims trying to publicly disclose a document directly from the files of the U.S. Attorney. Judge Marra denied the motion because the Jane Does had not shown that they should be able to publicly disclose a document they got directly from the U.S. Attorney’s files. This issue, again, has nothing to do with whether the lower court should unseal the state court records. But in so ruling, Judge Marra indirectly acknowledged the state trial court’s jurisdiction to unseal its own records. Judge Marra stated: “Ifa specific tangible need arises in a civil case petitioners or other alleged victims are pursuing against Epstein, relief should be sought in that case, with notice to the United States, the other party to the Agreement.” (A-6, page 2.) Judge Marra’s orders were entered after the NPA was sealed by the lower court; they can have nothing whatsoever to do with whether the NPA was properly sealed. Neither federal order, by their express terms, precludes the lower court from unsealing its own court records. Judge Marra did not enjoin and does not have jurisdiction to enjoin the lower court from unsealing its own records, Younger I Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971). As Judge Marra noted, “the [NPA] was not filed in this case [the federal proceeding], under seal or EFTA00184026

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

otherwise.” (A-6, page 1.) The copy of the NPA in the file of the lower court is a state court record, not a federal court record, Playing Judge Marra off on the lower court is a red herring. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the petition should be denied and the stay on disclosure vacated. | HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been served by mail on the parties listed below this [Seay of July, 2009. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is submitted in Times New Roman 14-point font and complies with the font requirement of Rule 9.100. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone, (944) 522-3456 Telecopjer 7-8663 By: Wiliam J. Berger Florida Bar No. EFTA00184027

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

SERVICE LIST Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401-5913 Deanna K. Shullman 400 North J Drive, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 Tampa, Fl 33602 Spencer T. Kuvin Leopold- Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Robert D. Critton of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 U.S. Attorney’s Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FI! 33401 State Attorney’s Office- West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 EFTA00184028

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 EFTA00184029

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, | STATE OF FLORIDA, et. al, Respondents. / APPENDIX TO RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI ROBERT D. CRITTON BURMAN, CRITTON, LUTTIER & COLEMAN 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 and JACK A. GOLDBERGER ATTERBURY, GOLDBERGER & WEISS, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 ! and and BARBARA J, COMPIANI of KREUSLER-WALSH, COMPIANI & VARGAS, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 st Palm Beach, FL 33401-5913 ; Counsel for Petitioner EFTA00184030

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Document Tab Proceedings in Southern District Court Transcript of Epstein’s Motion to Stay Civil Proceedings (6/ 12/09) - EFTA00184031

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing Appendix has been served by mail on the parties listed below this 19 day of July, 2009. ROTHSTEIN ROSENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for . 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephone (954) 522-3456 Telecopier/(94))527-8663 By: Willianf J. Berger Florida Bar = SERVICE LIST and Barbara J. Compiani or Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401-5913 Deanna K. Iiman 400 North Drive, Suite 1100 P.O. Box 2602 (33601) Tampa, Fl 33602 Spencer T. Kuvin Leopold- Kuvin, P.A. 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Robert D, Critton of Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 EFTA00184032

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Jack A. Goldberger of Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, F! 33401 U.S. Attorney’s Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 State Attorney’s Office- West Palm Beach 401 North Dixie Highway West Palm Beach, FI 33401 Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 EFTA00184033

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

O9-AATES , UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WEST PALM BEACH DIVISION CASE NO. 08-80119-CIV-MARRA naan WEST PALM BEACH, JANE DOE, et al., Plaintiffs, JUNE 12, 2009 vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, | | | | | | | | | Defendant. | x eee TRANSCRIPT OF MOTION HEARING BEFORE THE HONORABLE KENNETH A. MARRA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 APPEARANCES : 13 FOR THE PLAINTIFFS: ADAM D. HOROWITZ, ESQ. 14 Mermelstein & Horowitz 18205 Biscayne Boulevard 15 Miami, FL 33160 For Jane Doe 16 BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. 17 Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 East Las Olas Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 Jane Doe 3, 47 5S, 6 7 ISIDRO M. GARCIA, ESQ. Garcia Elkins Boehringer 224 Datura Avenue West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Jane DOE II RICHARD H. WILLITS, ESQ. 2290 10th Avenue North Lake Worth, FL 33461 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION Qe . SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA §=6SCANNEID FLORIDA EFTA00184034

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 FOR THE DEFENDANT: REPORTED BY: ROBERT C. JOSEFSBERG, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 pitt tl ii | (Via telephone) KATHERINE W. BZELL, ESQ. Podhurst Orseck Josefsberg 25 West Flagler Street Miami, FL 33130 For Jane Doe 101 IIE ROBERT D. CRITTON, JR., ESQ. MICHAEL BURMAN, ESQ. Burman Critton, etc. 515 North Flagler Street West Palm Beach, FL 33401 JACK A. GOLDBERGER, ESQ. Atterbury Goldberger Weiss 250 Australian Avenue South West Palm Beach, FL 33401 a es x0. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 East Broward Boulevard Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 For U.S.A. MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. 20 Park Plaza Boston MA 02116 (Via telephone) HI JAY LEFKOWITZ, ESQ. (via telephone) WMMEEMEEE, 8b R-RMR-FCRR-AE Official United States Court Reporter Federally Certified Realtime Reporter 400 North Miami Avenue, Room 8NO9 Miami, FL 33128 TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184035

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE COURT: We are here in the various Doe vs. Epstein cases. May I have counsel state their appearances? MR. HOROWITZ: Adam Horowitz, counsel for plaintiffs Jane 2 through Jane Doe 7. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards, counsel for plaintiff Jane Doe. THE COURT: Good morning. 10 MR. GARCIA: Good morning, Your Honor. Sid Garcia for 11] Jane Doe Il. 12 THE COURT: Good morning. 13 MR. WILLITS: Good morning, Your Honor. Richard 14|| Willits, here on behalf of the plaintiff yy. 15 THE COURT: Good morning. 16 MS. EZELL: Good morning, Your Honor. I'm Katherine 17} Ezell from Podhurst Orseck, here with Amy Adderly and Susan 18] Bennett, and I believe my partner, Bob Josefsberg, is going to 19] appear by telephone. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, are you there? 21 MR, JOSEFSBERG: I am, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Good morning. 23 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Good morning. 24 THE COURT: All right. Do we have all the plaintiffs 25|| stated their appearances? Okay. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184036

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Defense? MR. CRITTON: Your Honor, Robert Critton on behalf of Mr. Epstein, and my partner, Michael Burman. THE COURT: Good morning. MR. GOLDBERGER: Good morning, Your Honor. Jack Goldberger on behalf of Mr. Epstein. THE COURT: I see we have some representatives from the United States Attorney's Office here. MS. a. Good morning, Your Honor. | § 10 , for the U.S. Attorney's office. 11 {THE COURT: Good morning. 12 Who else do we have on the phone? MR, CRITTON: Your Honor, we have two members of the 14] defense team are on the phone, also. 15 THE COURT: Who do we have on the phone? 16 MR, WEINBERG: Martin Weinberg. Good morning, Your 17} Honor. MR. LEFKOWIT2Z: Jay Lefkowitz. Good morning, Your Honor. THE COURT: Good morning. I scheduled this hearing for very limited issues which, as you all know, there's been a motion by Mr. Epstein to stay the civil proceedings against him. The one issue I have concern about is Mr. Epstein's contention or assertion that by defending against the allegations in the civil proceedings, he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184037

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

may expose himself to an allegation by the United States in the non-prosecution agreement that he's violated that agreement and therefore would subject himself to potential federal charges. I had asked for some briefing on this. I asked the United States to present its position to me. And I received the Government's written response, which I frankly didn't find very helpful. And TI still am not sure I understand what the Government's position is on it. So first let me hear from Mr. Epstein's attorneys 4s 10} to what do you believe the concern is. I don't believe the 11] non-prosecution agreement has ever been filed in this Court; am 1241 correct?» 13 MR. CRITTON: To my knowledge, Your Honor, it has not. 14 THE COURT: So I don't believe I've ever seen the 15]| entire agreement. I've seen portions of it. 16 17] under Jane Doe 1 and 2 vs. United States of America, case under 18] seal in your court. 19 THE COURT: Okay. 20 MR. EDWARDS: In a separate case. 21 THE COURT: In that case, okay. Was it actually filed 22] in that case? 23 MR. EDWARDS: I filed it under seal. 24 THE COURT: In any event, what's Mr. Epstein's concern 25) about if you defend the civil actions, you're going to expose TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION MR. EDWARDS: Your Honor, I believe that it was filed EFTA00184038

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

yourself to 4 claim for a breach by the United States of the non-prosecution agreement? MR. CRITTON: Robert Critton. Your Honor, our position on this case is, I'd say is somewhat different. When this issue originally came before the Court, as you are aware prior to my firm's involvement in the case, there was a motion filed on behalf of Mr. Epstein seeking a stay. AndT think it was in Jane Doe 102 and then subsequently Jane Doe 2 through 5 because all of those cases 10] were filed on or about the same time. 11 And at that time the Court looked at the issue and it 12]| was based upon a statutory provision at that time. And the 13} Court said I don't find that it's applicable, or for whatever 14|) reason I think the Court said I don't consider that to be a 15] pending proceeding or a proceeding at that particular time. 16 In that same order, which was in Jane Doe 2, I 17]) believe it's -- not I believe, I know it's docket entry 33, the 18] Court also went on to talk about at that particular point in 19] time dealt with the issue of the discretionary stay. 20 And the Court said at that time, I'm paraphrasing, but 21] the Court also does not believe a discretionary stay is 22) warranted. And what the Court went on to say is that if 23\| defendant does not breach the agreement, then he should have no 24|| concerns regarding his Fifth Amendment right against 25) self-incrimination. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184039

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The fact that the U.S. Attorney or other law enforcement officials may object to some discovery in these civil cases is not in and of itself a reason to stay the. civil litigation, so that any such issue shall be resolved as they arise in the course of the litigation. And I would respectfully submit to the Court that the position that the Government has taken in its most recent filings changes the playing field dramatically. Because what the Government in essence has said as distinct from the U.S. 10]] saying is, well, we object to some discovery, or we may object 11|| to some discovery in the civil cases. 12 What they have, in essence, said is if you take some 13]} action, Mr. Epstein, that we believe unilaterally, and this is 14]| on pages 13 and 14 of their pleading or of their response memo 15| to the Court's inquiry, they say if Mr. Epstein breaches the 16] agreement. They said it's basically like a contract, and if 17) one side breaches, the other side can sue. 18 In this instance what the Government will do is if we 19|| believe that Mr. Epstein has breached the agreement, we'll 20|) indict him. We will indict him. And his remedy under that 21] circumstance, which is an incredible and catastrophic catch 22 22]) is, we'll indict him and then he can move to dismiss. That's a 23) great option. 24 In this particular instance my mandate in defending -- 25) and that's a dramatic change in the Government's position, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184040

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

because the Government is not saying, and the Court was pretty specific in what you asked the Government for in its response is, in essence, and it's the same question in a more Limited fashion you're posing today is whether Mr. Epstein's defense of the civil action violates the NPA agreement, the non-prosecution agreement, between the U.S. and Mr. Epstein. And the Government refuses to answer that question. They won't come out and say, yes, it will, or no, it won't. What they're doing is they want to sit on the sideline, and as 10 their papers suggest is, they want us to lay in wait and that 11) if, in fact, they believe he violates a provision of the NPA as 12] it relates to the defense of this case or these multitude of 13]| cases, then they can come in and indict him -- no notice, no 14]] opportunity to cure. 15 We don't think that's what the NPA says, but that's 16} certainly what their papers say. We'll indict him, no notice, 17) no opportunity to cure. We will indict him, and his remedy 18]] under that circumstance is that he can move to dismiss the 19] indictment. 20 Well, that's great except Mr. Epstein, his mandate to 211 me and I know his mandate to his criminal lawyers, is: Make 22) certain I don't do anything, in particular in these civil cases 23) that would in any way suggest that I am in willful violation of 24]] the NPA. 25 Now, in the Court's prior ruling in the docket entry TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184041

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 33, certainly some aspects of the NPA are within Mr. Epstein's control. There's no question about that. But aspects that relate to the defense of these cases, either in terms of the civil lawyers who are defending these, I think there's 12 or 13 pending cases in front of you, there's another four cases in the state court, is the risk is substantial, it's real, and it presents a chilling effect for the civil lawyers in moving forward to determine whether or not we're taking some action that in some way may be a violation of the NPA. And the Government's, again, refusal or non-position with regard to past acts that have been taken in the civil case with regard to the defense or future acts that we may take with regard to these contested litigation casts an extraordinary cloud of doubt and uncertainty and fear that the defense of these cases could jeopardize Mr. Epstein and put him in the irreparable position of violating the NPA and then subsequently being indicted. In this particular instance, again, Mr. Epstein has no intention of willfully violating the NPA, but it's of great concern to him, And I'd say with the position that the Government has taken, no notice, no cure period, no opportunity to discuss. Again, we think that's not what the NPA provides, it's not what the deal was between the two contracting parties, the United States and Mr. Epstein, But that's clearly what their papers say under the circumstances, and it would create TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184042 penne ere

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10 this irreparable harm to Mr. Epstein under the circumstances. In essence, we're left with a catch 22 in defending the civil cases. We have a mandate to take no action, to take any action which may be deemed to be a violation of the NPA, either in the past or in the future, which would in any way risk Mr. Epstein being indicted by the United States. He has the clear risk of an indictment based upon the papers that the Government filed. It's real, it's not remote, and it's not speculative. It chills the action of the defense 10]| in this instance of both Mr. Epstein and his attorneys in 11] trying to defend these cases and decide under the circumstances 12 can we do this, can we take this position with regard to 13] depositions, can we take this legal position with regard to 14] motions to dismiss, with regard to responses, with regard to 15] replies? 16 And we send out paper discovery. Is this in some way 17) if we contact someone who may be an associate of these 18] individuals as part of our investigation, is that potentially 19] in any way a violation of the NPA? Again, we don't think so. 20 And, obviously, again, my direction has been from my 21] client: Don't take any action that would result in me being 221] indicted under the NPA. Well, that's great. But, generally, 23 civil lawyers or civil lawyers in defending 4 personal injury 241, case or a tort case, which is exactly what these are, and from 251 a practical standpoint, we use various tools to do discovery. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184043

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 They're standard. They're specific. They're very temporary. very typical. But in this instance, 4s the Court knows, things are not typical with regard to this case in any way, shape or form. We can't even serve subpoenaes, there's objections and there's -- we can't even serve objections to third parties so we can obtain documents unless we have to filter it through the plaintiffs' attorneys. They won't allow us to use their clients’ names, even in a subpoena that would never be filed in the court. How do we do a deposition of a third party? We wanted to take the deposition of Jane Doe 4. Well, who is she? Well, we can't tell you that. Well, who's the defendant? Well, we can't tell you that because nobody wants anybody to know anything about the case. They want to present it strictly through rose-colored glasses. and in this particular instance, we simply can't defend this case or take certain action with the spector hanging over us that, in fact, the Government may deem it to be a violation of the NPA, because very clearly in their response papers, they don't say. They say we don't take the position, and then they take a substantial position is we think there's not all that substantial factors that would entitle him to a stay. Except for the one major issue which the Court posed TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184044

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

12 in the question is, is can he defend these cases? That's what I really want to know. Can he defend these cases and, in essence, what he has done in the past or what his defense team hag done in the past and what they're going to do in the future, can you give him, Epstein, assurances that the Government under this situation, whatever he does, based on advice of counsel, that that cannot be a willful violation of the NPA, which they can -~ they, the U.S. -~ can then turn around and say that's a violation of the agreement and, 10|) therefore, we're going to go proceed to indict you under the 114 circumstances. 12 Our position is, Your Honor, is that the U.S. has now 13]] cavalierly suggested that, as they did in picking up on the 14], court's docket entry or prior order, is, look, compliance with 15|| the NPA is solely up to Mr. Epstein. In this type of balance 16|| of equities, it doesn't speak in favor of a. stay. 17 Well, that's great. And maybe that was the position 18) back in '08, on August Sth of '08, when the issue came up in 19) front of the Court with regard to the initial stay. 20 But the Government's papers under these circumstances 21) suggested a very different set of circumstances. Their own 22) unilateral, which is the issue that we argued in the motion for 23] stay, is that the Government's position is that we can 24] unilaterally indict this man if we think he's breached the NPA. 25 We don't think that's right, but we have no buffer TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184045

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

between us and the Government. They'll say, and as the Court knows, the Government has substantial power. The Government does what it wants. Most of the time hopefully they're right. Sometimes they make mistakes. But in this particular instance, my client has rights. We think that there's notice provisions, we think there's cure provisions under the NPA, That's not what their paper says under the circumstances. And what we'd like to know from the Government, and 10) maybe the answer is basically what the Court asks is, let the 11] Government come forward today and say, based on the knowledge 12) that we have, or as of today's date, June 12th, 2009, we, the 13} Government, agree that there is no set of circumstances, not 14] that we're not aware of, but as of today's date, there is 15] nothing that exists that would be a violation of the NPA. 16 THE COURT: Well, that's way beyond what I'm 17] interested in. I don't know what Mr. Epstein may have done 18} outside the context of defending this case that may constitute 19)) a violation. And if he has done something outside the context 20) of defending this case that's a violation, I don't care. 21) That's between the United States and Mr. Epstein. 22 I'm only concerned about whether anything he does in 23}, defending these civil actions is going to be a violation of the 24], non-prosecution agreement. If he has done something else, it's 25|| none of my business, and I don't care, and I'm not going to TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 13 EFTA00184046 perenne ere tenn earn

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

14 even ask the Government to give you an assurance that he hasn't done anything that might have violated the agreement up till today. I'm only interested in defending these civil actions. MR. CRITTON: Then I would respectfully submit to the Court that the Government be asked in that Limited context, are they as of today, whether there were or not, but as of today is there anything that has been done or will you take the position, the United States, that any position that Mr. Epstein has taken with regard to defending these civil cases is in any 10 way a violation of the NPA? il THE COURT: Well, I'm not sure what they're going to 12) say, but that might -- that cures the problem up to this point. 13] But then we have to deal with what's going to happen from here 14] on in. And that's another issue that we have to deal with. 15 So I understand your position. 16 But has anyone suggested to you on behalf of the 17] United States that there is something that you've done in 18 || defending this case that they believe may or could be construed 19], as a violation of the non-prosecution agreement? Has anyone 20} pointed to anything that you've done? For example, the fact 21|| that you've wanted to take their -- I don't know if you've 22|| noticed depositions or not in this case, but if you've sent 23) notice of taking deposition, if you sent requests for 24|| production of documents, if you sent interrogatories, if you 25 issued third party subpoenas? Is anything you've done thus far TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184047

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

15 in the context of this case been brought to your attention as a potential violation? MR. CRITTON: I have received no notification nor am I aware that we've received any notification of any action that we have taken today. As I suggested to the Court, I don't know when they've done or not. And in their papers they suggested, well, we don't know everything that's gone on in the civil litigation. But from a practical standpoint, it was @ number of 10} comments that were made in their papers is, we can indict, we 11] can see if there's a breach. 12 Judge, I may have some ~~ 13 THE COURT: Before you go on. 14 MR. CRITTON: I'm sorry. 15 THE COURT: You've focused a great deal on the 16] Government's response to my inquiry as supporting your position 17] that you're in jeopardy. But you've made the suggestion, even 18} before this brief was filed, that defending the case was going 19]| to potentially result in an assertion or allegation that you 20|| breached the non-prosecution agreement. 21 So what was it that caused you to make that initial 22) assertion? Because that's what caught my attention, was not -~ 23]| this brief that the Government has filed was in response to 24], something that you filed initially in your most recent motion 25] for a stay which raised the issue. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184048

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 So what was it that gave you some concern to even raise the issue that defending this case is going to constitute a breach? MR. CRITTON: Because there are other instances where counsel other than myself, not in the civil aspects, where allegations have been made and letters have been sent by the United States suggesting that there's been a violation of the NPA. And under those circumstances, some notification was provided. THE COURT: Did it have anything to do with defending the civil actions? MR. CRITTON: It did not. THE COURT: So then why was that issue raised by you in the first instance? MR. CRITTON: Because of the prospect that the defendant could take, that the U.S. would take the position under the circumstances that a position that we took with regard to the contested litigation may well impact, that the Government may have a very different view of what the interpretation of the agreement is. And as an example is a number of the parties, and I know the Court doesn't want to get into a discussion, the issue is, is under 2255 is that from the defendant's perspective the deal that was cut on that, it was a very specific deal. It dealt with both consensual and contested litigation. It dealt TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 16 EFTA00184049

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

with a secret list of individuals who we had no idea who was on the list, and a commitment that he would under certain circumstances be required to pay 4 minimum amount. of damages, which our position is under 2255 based upon the statute that was in effect at the time, a $50,000 as to anyone who wanted -~ who came forward who was on the list and met certain eriteria. The position that now has been asserted by a number of the plaintiffs under the circumstances, and it's been pled, and actually a number of the complainants is, is Epstein agreed, 10 and they cite to a letter that was sent by Ms. | from 11] the Government, that says he has to plead guilty or he can't 12) contest liability. That may be true under very, very limited 13} or specific circumstances. 14 But what the plaintiffs have done in a number of the’ 15] cases, and these are pending motions, is they've said is, well, 16) we think QR. cases is a good example, they've pled 30 17|| separate counts of 2255 alleged violations. And they're saying 18} under the circumstances is, therefore, we have 2255 violations, 19] there's 30 of them, so 30 times 150, or should be, or whether 20) it's 150, that's the amount of money that we want, so maybe $15 21] million, or whatever the number is. 22 Some of the other plaintiffs' lawyers have been even 23) more creative. They've said is, well, we'll agree that it's 24 only one cause of action but that each number of violations; 25)) that is, if 20 alleged incidents occurred, that we would TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION 17 EFTA00184050 er

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

18 consider to be, or that we will argue are violations, then we can take 20 times the 50, or the 150, depending on which statute is applicable. So the Government under that set of circumstance could say, and, again, this is one of the reasons that we raised it, they could say, look, our deal with you was that you couldn't contest liability, that you were waiving liability, or your ability to contest an enumerated offense under 2255. Again, part of the deal was as to an enumerated 10] offense. Okay. Well, what's that mean? What did he plead to? 11]| Well, he really didn't plead to anything, which is another 12]] issue associated with the 2255. But if the Government comes in 13) and says, NO, wait a minute, our position was, is that you're 14]] stuck with 2255 and the Language within the NPA. And, 15} therefore, whether it's an offense or whether it's multiple 16]) offenses or violations or each one represents an individual 17|| cause of action, if the Government takes the position that's 18]| adverse to what we think the clear reading of the agreement was 19} under those circumstances, they could claim a violation. 20 And as a result -- and that's one of the reasons we 21] put -- that was the most glaring one to us, so we raised that 22) issue. And then when the Government's response came with 23} regard to, is we can just proceed to indict if we think that 244 there's been a preach of the agreement. 25 That puts us at substantial risk and chills our TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184051

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

19 ability to move forward. Thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. Who wants to be heard from the plaintiffs first? Is there any plaintiff's attorney who is contending that the defense of these civil actions by Mr. Epstein is going to constitute a breach of the non-prosecution agreement? MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, this is Bob Josefsberg. May I speak? THE COURT: Yes, sir. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: We're not quite confident that any 11]) breaches of any agreement, which were third-party 12] beneficiaries, should be resolved by you. We're not saying it 13} shouldn't. But we have not raised any breach of agreement. We 14] think that is between the United States and Mr. Epstein. What I find incredulous and disingenuous is that Mr. Epstein is saying that he wants @ stay because he may be forced into taking actions in the defense of this case that 18], would violate the agreement. 19 And let me make our position clear on that. If he 20] wants to move to take depositions, interrogatories, production, 214 and they are according to your rulings appropriate, not 22|) invasive of the privacy of someone, and they are relevant, then 23) 1 don't know how those could in any way be violations of the 24 agreement. 25 What I find hypocritical is that there are two parts TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184052

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

to the agreement that I ama beneficiary of. One of them is that he has agreed that on any action brought in the 2255, he will admit to liability. And I received on May 26 a motion to dismiss, which we're prepared to respond to and disagree with, but totally contesting liability, saying that the statute doesn't apply because the girls are no longer minors and saying, and this is the great one, saying that the predicate of the conviction under 2255 has not been satisfied. 10 Now, the understanding that I have is the agreement 111 between the Government and Mr. Epstein was that the Government 12] desired to see these victims made whole, and wanted them to be 13, in the same position as if Mr. Epstein had been prosecuted and 14] pled or convicted. And they would be able to have the 15|| predicate of that criminal conviction, which just as a matter 16]| of liability would just be introduced as proof that he's done 17} this. 18 They, under the agreement, are supposed to admit to 19} liability on limited something that's under 2255. He has 20}) filed, but since there is no conviction, there can be no civil 21] suit under 2255, with which we disagree. But it is totally in 22|) opposite of the NPA. 23 The second part is there are many young ladies, and 24\) this perhaps he can use this to his great advantage, who are 25 humiliated about this entire situation. Some of them won't TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184053

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

pat come forward. We were appointed by Judge | so Special Master to represent these young ladies. And some of them don't even want to file suit. They don't even want to be known as Jane Doe 103. They don't want any of the risks for these motions that are pending. And part of the agreement was that if we represented them and they settle, Mr. Epstein would pay our fees. And he has written us as of yesterday that he is under no obligation 101] to pay our fees on settling cases. il Now, those two matters, I believe, may be breaches. 12] But I am not asking this Court at this time to do anything 13] about them. Nor am TI telling the Government, I'm not running 141] to the Government and saying indict him because I want you to i5]| pressure him to do what he agreed to. 16 I'm a third-party beneficiary for that agreement, and 17 I may move to enforce certain parts of it. But as far as the 18 issue of staying the litigation, that is the exact opposite of 19] the intent and the letter of the NPA. The purpose of the NPA 20 was so that these 34 young ladies, these victims who have been 21) severely traumatized, may move on with their lives. 22 And to stay this action would be the exact opposite of 23|| the purpose of that agreement and would be horrible 24]| psychologically for all of my clients. 25 {THE COURT: Mr. Josefsberg, I understand your TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184054

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

position. And I don't want to argue the merits of whether a stay should or should not be granted. I'm just trying to understand what the ground rules are going to be if I grant a stay or if I deny a stay. And I've already denied a stay once. I have to decide this current motion, and I just want to know what is going to happen if I deny the stay in terms of Mr. Epstein's exposure under the non-prosecution agreement. That's my concern. So if you're telling me that you're not going to urge the United States, on behalf of any of your clients, to take the position that he's breached the agreement because he's 12] taking depositions, because he's pursuing discovery, because 13) he's conducting investigations that anyone in any other type of 14l| civil litigation might conduct with respect to plaintiffs that 15{] are pursuing claims against a defendant, that those typical 16] types of actions, in your judgment, are not breaches of the 17]| agreement and that he can go forward and defend the case as any 18] other defendant could defend, and you're not going to run to 19] the United States and say, hey, he's breaching the agreement by 20\| taking depositions and he's breaching the agreement by issuing 21]| subpoenas to third parties in order to gather information 22\\ necessary to defend, then I don't have a problem. But if he's 23]] going to be accused of breaching the agreement because he sends 241] out a notice of deposition of one of your clients, how is he 25 |) supposed to defend the case? TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184055 ree ere gt tr

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you're totally correct. He can depose my client. That's not a problem. But the problem is that these are not typical clients and this is not a typical case. He has written in his pleadings that he wants to publish the names of these girls in the newspapers So that other people may come forward to discuss their sexual activities with these different plaintiffs. That's not your typical case. But are rulings that you'll make in this case, and they're not part of the NPA. 10 As far as my going to the Government is concerned, I 11] find it very uncomfortable for me to use the Government to try 12}, to pursue my financial interest in litigation. And I know that 13 Mr. Epstein and his counsel will make much ado about it. Sol 14]) am not going to be running there. 15 However, if they start taking depositions regarding 16] liability, I will consider that to be a breach because they're 17|| supposed to have admitted liability. 18 {HE COURT: But, again, I don't have the agreement and 19] I don't remember reading the agreement. But what I'm being 20] told is the part of the agreement that admits liability is only 21) as to a 2255 claim, and there are numerous other personal 22] injury tort claims other than 2255 claims. 23 And there's a limit of damages on the 2255 claim, as I 24]| understand it, but I presume that all the plaintiffs are going 25] to seek more than the limited or capped amount of damages in TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184056

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

24 the non-prosecution agreement as to the other claims. And so why aren't they entitled to defend and limit the amount of damages that your client is seeking on the non-2255 tort claims? MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, you are correct. on non-2255 tort claims, they are permitted to do the defense, whatever is appropriate. My cases are pure 2255 on which liability under the agreement is supposed to be admitted. Now, as to the amount of 10}) damages, there are legal issues that will be before you and 11]}) under the ia. cases that are getting before you, as to 12] whether it is 50 or 150. That has nothing to do with the NPA. 13 There are legal issues that are before you as to 14] whether it is per statute, per count or per incident or per 15]}| plaintiff. Those have nothing to do with the NPA. There is no 16 amount in NPA. Those will be resolved. 17 Anyone who has brought a case that is outside of 2255, 18 the defense is permitted to contest liability under the NPA. 19] That's no violation. 20 Under the NPA if someone brought a case under just 21 2255, Mr. Epstein, if he is to keep his word, cannot contest 22) liability. And there would no need to stay this. Because it 23) is a self-fulfilling agreement. He can contest liability. And 24) as far as the amount of damages, anyone that wants to go over 25] the statutory minimums, of course, he can contest that in any TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184057

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

way that is proper under the Rules of Evidence and your rulings. ‘The NPA has no limitation on his contesting damages above the minimum statutory amount. The only thing that he has done is in his actions of refusing to pay for settling defendants, and in his saying that he has no liability under 2255, those appear to be contrary to what's in the NPA. But I'm not in any position right now to claim a breach, and I don't know whether I'd be claiming a breach or 10) enforcing it in front of you, suing him for fees, asking you to 11) have him admit liability, or complaining to the Government. i2|] and that's why I'm not that helpful in this situation because I 13] think it's the Government's role. 14 But I do not waive the right to be a third-party 15]) beneficiary because pursuant to my appointment, which was 16) agreed to by Mr. Epstein, I and my clients have certain rights, 17}) and we want to enforce them. 18 But his defending this lawsuit will not in any way be 19}/a violation, His getting this lawsuit stayed would be a 20|| violation of the spirit of taking care of these girls, and 21] there would be other issues. Like if there is a stay, Your 22|| Honor, would he be posting a bond? 23 THE COURT: We don't need to talk about those issues. 24 That's not my concern. MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor, we don't. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184058 arene

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

THE COURT: That's not my concern. So, again, I just want to make sure that if the cases go forward and if Mr. Epstein defends the case as someone ordinarily would defend a case that's being prosecuted against him or her, that that in and of itself is not going to cause him to be subject to criminal prosecution, MR. JOSEFSBERG: I agree, Your Honor. THE COURT: Any other plaintiff's counsel want to chime in? 10 MR. WILLITS: Richard Willits on behalf of MM.. 1 11} would join, to weigh in on what Mr. Josefsberg said. 12 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, I could not hear. 13 THE COURT: We'll get him to a microphone. 14] Mr. Willits is speaking. 15 MR, WILLITS: On behalf of my client, MMMM... we join 16] in what Mr. Josefsberg said, and we also want to point out 171 something to the Court. 18 First, we want to make 4 representation to the Court, 19]) we have no intention of complaining to the U.S. Attorney's 20 Office, never had that intention, don't have that intention in 21] the future, but, of course, subject to what occurs in the 22 future. 23 I want to point out to the Court that Mr. Epstein went 24}) into this situation with his eyes wide open, represented by 25] counsel, knowing that civil suits had to be coming. If he TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184059

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

didn't know it, his lawyers knew it. He appears to be having second thoughts now about he could have negotiated this way or he could have negotiated that way with the U.S. Attorney's Office. And they want to impose their second thoughts on the innocent plaintiffs. We don't think that's fair. We think it's in the nature of invited error, if there was any error whatsoever. Thank you. THE COURT: You agree he should be able to take the 10) ordinary steps that a defendant in a civil action can take and 11] not be concerned about having to be prosecuted? 12 MR. WILLITS: Of course. And we say the same thing 13] Mr. Josefsberg said, It's all subject to your rulings and the 14|| direction of this Court as to what is proper and what is not 15]) proper. And we're prepared to abide by the rulings of this 16]| court, and we have no intention of running to the State's 17} Attorney. 18 THE COURT: The U.S. Attorney? 19 MR. WILLITS: I'm sorry. The U.S. Attorney. 20 THE COURT: Mr. Garcia. 21 MR. GARCIA: Thank you, Your Honor. 22 If I may briefly, f think perhaps defense counsel 234 forgot about this, but on pages 17 and 19 of my memorandum of 244 law in opposition to the motion to dismiss, I did make reference to the non-prosecution agreement, and I did say that TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184060

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

the contesting of the jurisdiction of this Court was a potential breach of the non-prosecution agreement. So my client happens to have, and they have filed with the Court a copy of her state court complaint, given the fact that the non-prosecution agreement limits the non-contesting of jurisdiction to claims exclusively brought under the federal statute. I'm going to go ahead and withdraw those contentions on pages 17 and 19 of my memo of law because it doesn't apply 10} to my case. So to the extent that I raised this issue with 11) defense counsel and the Court, I'm going to withdraw that 12]) aspect of it. . 13 THE COURT: Can you file something in writing on that 14]) point with the Court? 15 MR. GARCIA: Yes. 16 THE COURT: What do you say about this issue that 17]) we're here on today? 18 MR. GARCIA: I think that the problem that I have with 19 it is that this non-prosecution agreement is being used by 20] defense counsel for the exact opposite purpose that it was 21) intended. My perception of this thing, and I wasn't around, is 22\| that Mr. Epstein essentially bought his way out of a criminal 23) prosecution, which is wonderful for the victims in a way, and 24|| wonderful for him, too. 25 Now he's trying to use the non-prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184061

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

as a shield against the plaintiffs that he was supposed to make | restitution for. And, certainly, he can take my client's depo. He's done extensive discovery in the state court case -~ very intrusive, I might add. And we don't care, because we can win this case with the prosecution agreement or without the prosecution agreement. We are ready to go forward. THE COURT: You're not going to assert to the United States Government that what he's doing in defending the case is 101 a violation for which he should be further prosecuted? 11 MR. GARCIA: Absolutely not. 12 THE COURT: Anyone else for the plaintiffs? 13 MR. HOROWITZ: Judge, Adam Horowitz, counsel for 14]| plaintiffs Jane Doe 2 through 7. 15 I just wanted to address a point that I think you've 16 articulated it. I just want to make sure it's crystal clear, 17} which is that we can't paint a broad brush for all of the 18] cases. 19 The provision relating to Mr. Epstein being unable to 20] contest liability pertains only to those plaintiffs who have 21) chosen as their sole remedy the federal statute. My clients, 22|| Jane Doe 2 through 7, have elected to bring additional causes 23) of action, and it's for that reason we were silent when you 2411 said does anyone here find Mr. Epstein to be in breach of the 25]| non-prosecution agreement. That provision, as we understand TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184062

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

it, it doesn't relate to our clients. THE COURT: Okay. But, again, you're in agreement with everyone else so. far that's spoken on behalf of a plaintiff that defending the case in the normal course of conducting discovery and filing motions would not be a breach? MR, HOROWITZ: Subject to your rulings, of course, yes. THE COURT: Thank you. Anyone else have anything to say from the plaintiffs? 10 Ms. pity if you would be so kind as to maybe j1]} help us out. TI appreciate the fact that you're here, and I 12|| know you're not a party to these cases and under no obligation 13]} to respond to my inquiries. But as I indicated, it would be 14|| helpful for me to understand the Government's position. 15 MS. fii § _ Thank you, Your Honor. And we, of 16] course, are always happy to try to help the Court as much as 17]| possible. But we are not a party to any of these lawsuits, and 18) in some ways we are at a disadvantage because we don't have 19}, access. My access is limited to what's on Pacer. So I don't 20|| really know what positions Mr. Epstein may have taken either in 21 correspondence or in discovery responses that aren't filed in 22 the case file. But your first order was really just what do you think 24 about a stay, and then the second order related to this hearing 25) and asked a much more specific question, which is whether we TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184063

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

31 believe that Mr. Epstein's defense was 4 breach of the agreement. And I've tried to review as many of the pleadings as possible. As you know, they're extremely voluminous. And I haven't been through all of them. But we do believe that there has been a breach in the filing that Mr. Josefsberg referred to, and contrary to Mr. Critton, we do understand that we have an obligation to provide notice, and we are providing notice to Mr. Epstein today. 10 The pleading that we found to be in breach -- the 11] non-prosecution agreement, sought to do one thing, which was to 12]] place the victims in the same position they would have been if 13|| Mr. Epstein had been convicted of the federal offenses for 144] which he was investigated. 15 And that if he had been federally prosecuted and 16}) convicted, the victims would have been entitled to restitution, 17) regardless of how long ago the crimes were committed, regardless of how old they were at the time, and how old they 19} are today, or at the time of the conviction. 20 And it also would have made them eligible for damages 21) under 2255. 22 And so our idea was, our hope was that we could set up 23), a system that would allow these victims to get that restitution 24) without having to go through what civil litigation will expose 25] them to, TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184064

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

You have a number of girls who were very hesitant about even speaking to authorities about this because of the trauma that they have suffered and about the embarrassment that they were afraid would be brought upon themselves and upon their families. So we did through the non-prosecution agreement tried to protect their rights while also protecting their privacy. So, pursuant to the non-prosecution agreement -- on the other hand, we weren't trying to hand them a jackpot or 4 key to a 10 bank. It was solely to sort of put them in that same position. 11 So we developed this language that said if -- that 12] provided for an attorney to represent them. Most of the 13]| victims, as you know from the pleadings, come from not wealthy 14]) circumstances, may not have known any attorneys who would be in 15] a position to help them. 16 So we went through the Special Master procedure that 17] resulted in the appointment of Mr. Josefsberg, and the goal was 18]| that they would be able to try to negotiate with Mr. Epstein 19]| for a fair amount of restitution/damages. And if Mr. Epstein 20]) took the position, which apparently he has, which is that the 21} $50,000 or $150,000 floor under 2255 also would be a cap. That 22) if they were to proceed to file suit in Federal Court to get 23\| fair damages under 2255, Mr. Epstein would admit liability, but 24) he, of course, could fight the damages portion, which means 25), that, of course, he would be entitled to depositions; of TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184065

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

course, he would be entitled to take discovery, and we don't believe that any of that violates the non-prosecution agreement. The issue with the pleading that he filed, the motion to dismiss the case, I believe it's Jane Doe 101, represented by Mr. Josefsberg, is that that is a case that was filed exclusively under 18 U.S.C., Section 2255. She met that requirement. Mr. Epstein is moving to dismiss it, not on the basis of damages, he is saying that he cannot be held liable 10 under 2255 because he was not convicted of an offense. 11 The reason why he was not convicted of an offense is 12) because he entered into the non-prosecution agreement. So that 13]] we do believe is a breach. 14 The issue really that was raised in the motion to stay 15} and that I addressed in our response to the motion to stay is 16] that Mr. Epstein's -- Mr. Epstein wants to stay the litigation 17] in order to leave, in order to sort of attack the cases of the 18|| victims whether they are fully within the non-prosecution or 19] not, non-prosecution agreement or not, and leave the Government 20 without a remedy if he does, in fact, breach those terms. And 21] that is why we opposed the stay. 22 THE COURT: I'm not sure what you mean by that last 23 statement. 24 vs, MEM: Well, because this issue related to 25} the motion to dismiss on Mr. Josefsberg's client came up after TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184066

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

we had filed that response. And what we said in the response to the motion to stay is that the reason why he wants to stay the litigation is so that the non-prosecution agreement terminates based on a period of time, as he puts it. And then afterwards he would be able to come in here and make all of these arguments that clearly violate the non-prosecution agreement but we would be without remedy. THE COURT: But you're not taking the position that other than possibly doing something in litigation which isa 10] violation of an express provision of the non-prosecution 11]) agreement, any other discovery, motion practice, investigations 12] that someone would ordinarily do in the course of defending a 13] civil case would constitute a violation of the agreement? 14 MS. | No, Your Honor. I mean, civil 15] litigation is civil litigation, and being able to take 16]| discovery is part of what civil litigation is about. And while 17]| there may be, for example, if someone were to try to subpoena 18!) the Government, we would obviously resist under statutory 19]| reasons, all that sort of stuff. But, no, Mr. Epstein is 20] entitled to take the deposition of a plaintiff and to subpoena 21) records, etc. 22 THE COURT: And even if he seeks discovery from a 23) Government agency, you have the right to resist it under the 24|| rules of procedure but that would not constitute a violation, 25] again unless there's a provision in the prosecution agreement TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184067 Tp ne

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

35 that says I can't do this? Ms. QM: Correct. THE COURT: That's your position? vs. NE: Yoo. THE COURT: Thank you. vs. QM: | vhank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: Mr. Critton, did you want to add anything? MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. Just a few responses to some of the issues that have been raised. 10 The most glaring, at least from our perspective, is 11] both Mr. Josefsberg's comments that he believes that there's a 12|| violation of the NPA as well as Ms. Pitti ty with regard to 13]) Jane Doe 101. 14 Mr. Josefsberg, while he was the attorney rep who was 15] selected by Judge Pit | to represent 4 number of individuals, 16] alleged victims that may have been on the list, he represents 17} many of them. And the type of response that was filed in 101 181] would probably be very similar to what we will file if he 19]} files -- and he filed 102 as well. But if he files 103, 104 20}) and 105, or whatever number he files, we may well take that 21) same legal position in our motions and in our response or in 22) reply- 23 And what we've been, in essence, told today is we 24) consider that to be 4 violation of the NPA under the 25])| circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184068

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

102 is a perfect example that he filed is, we have e-mails going back and forth between the Government and my clients' attorneys at the time that suggested that 102 probably doesn't even fit within the statute of limitations. So under Mr. Josefsberg's argument is as well, we've only brought a 2255 claim. We don't care whether she's within or is outside the statute of limitations. Because she was on the list and under the circumstances, he has to admit liability, which we contest is under that set of circumstances 10] you're stuck with it. You can fight damages if you can, but 11]| she's a real person and you can't raise statute of limitations. 12 The other point that kind of strikes out is there's 13]] probably a difference. And I'm happy to provide a copy of the 14]] NPA or a redacted portion of the NPA which deals with the civil 15) issues, which are paragraphs 7, 8, 9 and 10, and the entire 16] addenda in camera for the Court to look at, if plaintiff's 17] counsel and the Government, I guess, really, because they're 18] not a party, is if they have no objection because they all have 19]| access based on 4 prior court order to the non-prosecution 20] agreement. 21 So I'm happy to provide that to the Court today and 22]) show it to counsel so that the Court can review that. 23 But our position with regard to the 2255 claims is 24|| that -- there were two types of claims that could be filed, one 25] was consensual litigation, the second was contested litigation. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184069

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

And under the consensual, in essence, which Mr. Epstein did, is he's offered $50,000 of the statutory minimum for that time period to all of those individuals. THE COURT: Can I interrupt you a second? MR. CRITTON: Yes, sir. THE COURT: I'm not here, and I don't believe it's my role to decide whether or not there is or is not a breach of the agreement. I'm just trying to understand what the Government's position is regarding your defending these cases. 10 Now, I'm just saying this as an example. If, for 11] example, in the non-prosecution agreement there was a provision 12|| that said explicitly: Jeffrey Epstein shall not move to 13|| dismiss any claim brought under 2255 by any victim no matter 14]}| how long ago the allegations or the acts took place, period. 15 If that was in the agreement and you filed a motion to 16] dismiss by someone who brought a claim, it might sound like it 17}| might be a violation. 18 MR. CRITTON: I agree. 19 THE COURT: So you would know that when you filed your 20|| motion because it was right there for you to read. 21 And so to stay the case because I want to do something 22) that the contract expressly prohibits me from doing, so stay 23\\ the case until the agreement expires so then I can do something 24l| that the agreement said I couldn't do so you won't be in fear 25 of prosecuting, I'm not sure that that is what I'm concerned TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184070

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

about. I'm concerned about discovery, investigation, motion practice, that's not prohibited by 4 provision of the agreement. If there's something that's prohibited by the agreement that you, knowing what the agreement says, gO ahead and do, anyway, I guess that's a risk you're going to have to take. If there's a legitimate dispute about it, I guess some arbiter is going to decide whether it's a breach or not. But, again, that's something you and Mr. Burman, 10) Mr. Goldberger, and you are all very good lawyers, and he's got 11 a whole list of lawyers representing him, and you've got the 12} agreement and you're going to make legal decisions on how to 13) proceed, and you're going to have to go and make your own 14] decisions. 15 I'm concerned about things that aren't in the 16} agreement, that aren't covered, that you're going to be accused 17 of violating because, again, you take depositions, you send out 18]} subpoenas, you file motions that are not prohibited by the 19] agreement. And that's what I'm concerned about. 20 MR, CRITTON: And I understand that, Your Honor. 21 But at the same time, it's as if the lawyers and the 221 clients, based upon our interpretation of the agreement, and, 23} believe me, we would not have filed 101, the motion to dismiss, 24] but for believing that there was a good faith basis to do that 25\| under the circumstances. TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184071

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

And now, in essence, we're being accused not only by -- not accused, but it's been suggested that there's a breach of the NPA, not only by Mr. Josefsberg on behalf of 101, but as well Ms. a: pehalf of the United States. That's the perfect example. ‘They're basically saying we think you violated. We may send you notice under the circumstances. So does that mean that on 101 we have to back off of it because we think in good faith that it's a motion and is that something that this Court ultimately will rule? 10 THE COURT: I don't know that I'm the one who is going 11] to make that decision. Again, that's not the kind of thing 124 that I was concerned about. I was more concerned about the 13] normal, ordinary course of conducting and defending a case that would not otherwise expressly be covered under the agreement, 15] that you're going to then have someone Say, ah, he's sent a 16]} notice of deposition, he's harassing the plaintiffs. I don't 17] know if there's a no contact provision in the agreement or no 18] harassment type of provision in the agreement. Ah, this isa 19|| breach because you sent discovery, or he's issuing subpoenas to 20|) third parties trying to find out about these victims' 21]) backgrounds, he's breaching the agreement. 22 Those are the kind of things that I was worried about. 23 MR. CRITTON: The concern that we have is as part of 24, doing this general civil litigation, it's not just the 25] discovery process. And I understand the issues that the Court TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184072

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

has raised. But part of it is that often cases are disposed of either on a summary basis or certainly legal issues that come before the Court during the course of the case, just like ina criminal case. That's clearly part of the, I'd say the defense of the case under the circumstances; and if, in fact, an individual can't legally bring a cause of action for certain reasons, such as has been suggested in 101, and may be suggested in 102 when that pleading is filed, that certainly is 10 a position that puts my client at risk. 11 As another example that I use with n.. that they 12]) filed this 30-count complaint. Now, they have the state court 13) claims as well. But they, in essence, have said they filed 14] another pleading with the Court that says depending on what the 15} Court rules, in essence, on whether we can file multiple claims 16], or one cause of action with multiple violations, we may dump 17) the state court claims and, therefore, we'll just ride along on ig} that. That's a very different -~- 19 Mr. Epstein would never have entered into, nor would 20] his attorneys have allowed him to enter into that agreement 21]] under those circumstances where he had this unlimited 22 liability. That clearly was never envisioned by any of the 23|| defendants -- by the defendant or any of his lawyers under the 24) circumstances. 25 And if that's claimed to be a violation, either by the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184073

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

41 attorneys; i.e., he's not recapitulating on liability under the 2255, and that's all we have now. That's our exclusive remedy. And the Government sayS; yeah, that's right, that's a violation of the NPA. It again chills us from moving forward, filing the necessary motion papers and taking legal positions that may put my client at risk for violating the NPA and then creating the irreparable harm of, after having been in jail, after having pled guilty to the state court counts, after registering on release aS a Sex offender, he's complied and 10 |} done everything, taken extraordinary efforts to comply with the 11] NPA, puts him at substantial risk. And that's what our worry 12]) is moving forward. 13 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Your Honor, may I be heard, May I 14] make three comments? It will take less than a minute. 15 THE COURT: Yes, sir. 16 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Mr. critton refers to the alleged 17] victims. I want you to know that our position is that pursuant 18} to the NPA they're not alleged victims. They are actual, real 19) victims, admitted victims. 20 Secondly, he argues about the statute of limitations 21 on 102. I know that you don't want to hear about that, and I'm 22) not going to comment about it. But please don't take our lack 23) of argument about this as being we agree with anything. 24 Last and most important, we totally agree with 25||Mr. Critton in his suggestion that he hand you a copy of the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184074

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

42 NPA. I think that many of the questions you asked will be answered when you read the NPA, and I think it's very unfair of everyone who is sitting in front of you who have the NPA to be discussing with you whether it's being preached, whether there should be a stay when you're not that familiar with it. If we would give you a copy of it, I think it would be much more helpful in making your ruling. THE COURT: Maybe Judge Colvat will resolve this issue for me. 10 MR. JOSEFSBERG: Even if he doesn't, Your Honor, I 11) believe we are allowed to show it to you. 12 THE COURT: I'll tell you what: I'll wait for Judge 13]| Colvat to rule, and then if he rules that it should remain 14) sealed, then I'll consider whether or not I want to have it 15|| submitted to me in camera. 16 Anything else, Mr. Josefsberg? 17 MR, JOSEFSBERG: No. I thank you on behalf of myself and the other counsel on the phone for permitting us to appear 19} by phone. 20 THE COURT: All right. Anyone else have anything they 21) want to add? 22 MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of Jane Doe. 23 I only had one issue here, and when I read your motion 24], that you wanted to hear on the narrow issue of just defense in 25\| the civil actions filed against him violates the TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184075

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

non-prosecution agreement, I was expecting that we were going to hear something from the Government similar to the affidavit that was filed by Mr. Epstein's attorneys wherein he indicates as of the day of this affidavit attached to the motion to stay, the U.S. Attorney's Office has taken the position that Epstein has breached the non-prosecution agreement and it names specifically investigation by Epstein of this plaintiff and other plaintiffs, Epstein's contesting damages in this action. Epstein, or his legal representatives, making statements to the 10] press. And we didn't hear any of those things. 11 So that's what I was expecting that the U.S. 12] Attorney's Office was going to expound on and say, yes, we've 13], made some communications to Epstein. He's violating. 14 What we're hearing right now, today, just so that I'm 15) clear, and I think the Court is clear now, is that the 16} non-prosecution agreement is what it is. There have been no 17] violations, but for maybe what Mr. Josefsberg brought up. 18 But there are very few restrictions on Mr. Epstein. 19]| He went into this eyes wide open. And whether or not I agree 20} with the agreement, how it came to be in the first place, is 21} neither here nor there. 22 But there have been no violations or breaches up to 23) this point. and his affidavit that was filed, I'm just 24 troubled by where it even came from. I mean, it's making 25|) specific allegations that the U.S. Attorney's office is TOTAL ACCESS COURTROOM NETWORK REALTIME TRANSCRIPTION EFTA00184076

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

threatening a breach, and this is part of the motion to stay, which we're all battling here. So I just wanted to indicate to the Court or remind the Court that there have been specific allegations made, the United States Attorney's Office is making these allegations of breach, which we haven't heard any of the evidence of. Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Ms. Pitti did you want to respond to that suggestion that there were other allegations of breach besides the one that you've just mentioned today? MS. ee: No, Your Honor. THE COURT: Thank you. I appreciate your giving me the information, which I think has been very helpful today, and I'll try and get an order out as soon as possible. [Court adjourned at 11:10 a.m.). 17 CERTIFICATE 18 I hereby certify that the foregoing is an accurate 19}} transcription of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 20 yo 21 ee DATE MUNI, 2 R-CM-RMR-FCRSC 22 Official United States Court Reporter 400 N, Miami Avenue 23 Miami, FL 33128 - pe td] (rox) a): — Quality Assurance by Proximity Linguibase Technologies EFTA00184077

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

—— — abide 27:15 —_——_—_——— 16:10 18:11 21:12 30:9 35:7 41:23 against 4:23,25 6:24 22:15 26:4 29:1 43:6 ee: pack 12:18 36:2 39:7 | breaches T:AS,17 ability 18:8 19:1 42:25 42:16,20 backgrounds 39:21 19:11 21:11 22:16 f able 20:14 27:9 agency 34:23 anyway 38:6 balance 12:15 43:22 32:18 34:5,15 ago 31:17 37:14 apparently 32:20 bank 32:10 breaching 22:19,20 about 4:24 5:25 6:10 | agree 13:13 17:23 | appeat 3:19 25:6 | tyased 6:12 10:7 12:6 | 22:23 39:21 6:18 9:2 11:15 25:25 26:7 27:9 42:18 13:11 17:4 34:4 brief 15;18,23 13:22 20:25 21:13 | 37:18 41:23,24 appearances 1:12 36:19 38:22 briefing 5:4 23:13 25:23 27:2 43:19 3:3,25 basically 7:16 13:10 | Briefly 21:22 27:11,23 28:16 agreed 17:9 20:2 appears 27:2 39:5 bring 29:22 40:7 30.24 32:2.2,3 21:15 25:16 applicable 6:13 18:3 | pasis 33:9 38:24 | broad 29:17 34:16 38:1,2,7,15 agreement 5:2,2,11 apply 20:6 28:9 40:3 brought 15:1 20:2 fj 38:19 39:12,12,20 5:15 6:2,23 7:16 appointed 21:2 battling 44:2 24:17,20 28:6 32:4 39:22 41:20,21,22 7:19 8:5,6 12:9 appointment 25:15 | Beach 1:2,4,21 2:10 36:6 37:13,16 i 41:23 13:24 14:2,19 32:17 2:13 43:17 above 25:3 15:20 16:20 18:18 appreciate 30:11 before 1:11 6:5 Broward 2:15 Nbovecentitied 44:19 | 18:24 19:6,11,13 44:13 15:13,18.24:10,11 | rush 29:17 Absolutely 29:11 19:18,24 20:1,10 | appropriate 19:21 24:13 40:4 buffer 12:25 access 30:19,19 20:18 21:7,16,23 | 24:7 behalf 3:14 4:2,6 6:7 | Burman 2:8,9 4:3 36:19 22:8,11,17,19,20 arbiter 38:8 14:16 22:10 26:10 38:9 according 19:21 22:23 23:18,19,20 | argue 18:1 22:1 36:15 30:3 39:3,4 | business 13:25 securate 44:18 24:1,9,23 27:25 | argued 12:22 42.17.22 nccused 22:23 38:16 | 28:2,5,19,25 29:6 | argiiet 41:20 being 9:17 10:6,21 39:1,2 29:7,25 30:2 31:2 | argument 36:5 23:19 26:4 28:19 C 2:1 44:17,17 action 7:13 8:5 9:8 31:11 32:6,8 33:3 41:23 29:19 34:15 39:1 came 6:5 12:18 17:6 fi 10:3,4,9,21 11:18 33:12,19 34:3,7,1! | arguments 34:6 41:23 42:4 18:22 33:25 43:20 15:4 17.24 18:17 | 34:13,25 36:20 arise 7:5 believe 3:18 5:10,10 | 43:24 20:2 21:22 27:10 37:8,11,15,23,24 around 12:9 28:21 §:14,16 6:17,17,21 camera 36:16 42:15 29:23 40:7,16 43:8 | 38:4.5,5,12,16,19 articulated 29:16 713,19 8:11 14:18 | AP 32:21 actions 5:25 13:23 38:22 39:14,17,18 | asked 5:4,4 8:2 14:5 21:11 34:1,5 33:2 capped 23:25 14:3 16:11 19:5,17 39:21 40:20 43:1,6 | 30:25 42:1 33:5,13 37:6 38:23 care 13:20,25 25:20 22:16 25:4 42:25 43;16,20 asking 21:12 25:10 42:11 29:5 36:6 activities 23:7 ah 39:15,18 asks 13:10 believes 35:11 ease 1:3 5:17,20,21 acts 9:11,12 37:14 ahead 28:8 38:5 believing 38:24 §:22 6:4,7 8:12 actual 41:18 al 1:4 beneficiaries 19:12 | 9:11 10:24,24 ih actually 5:21 17:9 allegation 5:1 15:19 beneficiary 20:1 11:15,18 13:18,20 Adam 1:13 3:4 allegations 4:25 16:6 asserted 21:16 25:15 14;:18,22 15:1,18 29:13 37:14 43:25 44:4,5 | assertion 4:24 15:19 } Bennett 3:18 16:2 19:17 22:17 add 29:5 35:742:21 | 44:10 15:22 besides 44:10 22:25 23:4,8,8 addenda 36:16 alleged 17:17,25 Assistant 2:15 between 8:6 9:23 24:17,20 26:3,4 Adderly 3:17 35:16 41:16,18 | associate 10:17 131,21 19:14 28:10 29:4,6,9 additional 29:22 allow 11:8 31:23 associated 18:12 20:11 36:2 30;4,22 33:5,6 address 29:15 allowed 40:20 42:11 | assurance 14:1 beyond 13:16 34:13 37:21,23 addressed 33:15 along 40:17 assurances !2:5 Biscayne 1:14 39:13 40:4,5,6 adjourned 44:16 already 22:5 attached 43:4 Bob 3:18 19:7 cases 3:2 6:9 7:3,11 Adler 1:17 always 30:16 attack 33:17 Boehringer 1:20 $:13,22 9:3,5,5,15 admit 20:3,18 25:11 Amendment 6:24 attention 15:1,22 bond 25:22 10:3,11 12:1,2 32:23 36:8 America 5:17 Atterbury 2:12 Boston 2:18 14:9 17:15,16 } admits 23:20 amount 17:3,20 attorney 2:15 7:1 both 10:10 16:25 21:10 24:8,1 1 26:2 admitted 23:17 24:9 23:25 24:3,9,16,24 19:4 27:17,18,19 35:11 29:18 30:12 33:17 Ff 41:19 25:3 32:19 bought 28:22 37:9 40:2 ado 23:13 3:17 Boulevard 1:14,17 | casts 9:13 advantage 20:24 2:14 4:9 11:8 32:14 36:3 215 catastrophic 7:21 adverse 18:18 another 9:5 14:14 40:20 41:1 43:3 Brad 3:7 42:22 catch 7:21.10:2 advice 12:7 18:11 40:11,14 Attorney's 4:8,10 BRADLEY 1:16 caught 15:22 affidavit 43:2,4,23 answer 8:7 13:10 26:19 27:4 43:5,12 | preach 6:1,23 15:11 cause 17:24 18:17 afraid 32:4 answered 42;2 43:25 44:5 16:3 18:24 19:6,13 26:5 40:7,16 after 33:25 41:7,8,8 anybody 11:14 August 12:18 23:16 25:9,9 28:2 caused 15:21 afterwards 34:5 anyone 14;16,19 Australian 2:12 29:24 30:5 31:1,6 causes 29:22 again 9:10,18,22 17:5 22:13 24:17 | authorities 32:2 31:10 33:13,20 envalierly 12:13 10:19,20 18:5,9 24:24 29:12,24 Avenue 1:21,23 2:12 | 37:738:8 39:2,19 certain $:22 11:18 23:18 26:1 30:2 30:9 42:20 2:2344:22 44:1,6,10 17:2,6 21:17 25:16 34:25 38:9,17 anything 8:22 11:15 | aware 6:6 13:14 15:4 | preached 7:19 12:24 40:7 49:11 41:4 13:22 14:2,7,20,25 | a.m 44:16 15:20 22:11 42:4 certainly 8:16 9:1 EFTA00184078

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

29:3 40:3,9 Certified 2:22 certify 44:18 change 7:25 changes 7:8 charges 5:3 chilling 9:7 chills 10:9 18:25 414 chime 26:9 chosen 29:21 circumstance 7:21 8:18 18:4 circumstances 9:25 LO:1,11 12;11,20 12:21 13:8,13 16:8 16:17 17:3,8,13,18 18:19 32:14 35:25 36:8,9 38:25 39:7 40:6,21,24 cite 17:10 civil 4:23,25 5:25 7:3 7:3,11 8:5,22 9:4,7 9:11 10;3,23,23 13:23 14:3,9 15:7 16:5,11 19:5 20:20 22:14 26:25 27:10 31:24 34:13,14,15 34:16 36:14 39:24 42:25 claim 6:1 18:19 23:21,23 25:8 36:6 37:13,16 claimed 40:25 claiming 25:9 claims 22:15 23:22 23:22 24:1,4,6 28:6 36:23,24 40:13,15,17 clear 10:7 18:18 19:19 29:16 43:15 43:15 clearly 9:24 11:20 34:6 40:5,22 client 10:21 13:5 23:2 24:3 26:15 28:3 33:25 40:10 41:6 clients 11:9 21:24 22:10,24 23:3 25:16 29:21 30:1 36:3 38:22 client's 29:3 cloud 9:14 Colvat 42:8,13 come 8;8,13 13:11 21:1 23:6 32:13 34:5 40:3 comes 18:12 coming 26:25 comment 41:22 comments 15:10 35:11 41:14 commitment 17:2 committed 31:17 communications 43:13 complainants 17:9 complaining 25:11 26:19 complaint 28:4 40:12 compliance 12:14 complied 41:9 comply 41:10 concern 4:24 5:10,24 9:20 16:1 22:8 25:24 26:1 39:23 concerned 13:22 23:10 27:11 37:25 38;2,15,19 39:12 39:12 concerns 6:24 conduct 22:14 conducting 22:13 30:5 39:13 confident 19:10 consensual 16:25 36:25 37:1 consider 6:14 18:1 23:16 35:24 42:14 constitute 13:18 16:2 19:6 34:13,24 construed 14:18 contact 10:17 39:17 contending 19:4 contention 4:24 contentions 28:8 contest 17:12 18:7,8 24:18,21,23,25 29:20 36:9 contested 9:13 16:18 16:25 36:25 contesting 20:6 25:2 28:1 43:8 context 13:18,19 14:5 15:1 contract 7:16 37:22 contracting 9:23 contrary 25:6 31:7 control 9:2 convicted 20:14 31:13,16 33:10,11 conviction 20:8,15 20:20 31:19 copy 28:4 36:13 41:25 42:6 correct 5:12 23:1 24:5 35:2 correspondence 30:21 counsel 3:3,4,7 12:7 16:5 23:13 26:8,25 27:22 28:11,20 29:13 36:17,22 42:18 count 24:14 counts 17:17 41:8 course 7:5 24:25 26:21 27:12 30:4,6 30:16 32:24,25 33:1 34:12 39:13 40:4 court 1:1 2:22 3:1,6 3:9,12,15,20,22,24 4:4,7,11,15,20 $;11,14,18,19,21 5:24 6;6,11,13,14 6:18,20,21,22 7:6 8:1 9:6 11:3,10,25 12:19 13:1,10,16 14:5,11 15:5,13,15 16:10,13,22 19:2,9 21:12,25 23:18 25:23 26:1,8,13,17 26:18,23 27:9,14 27:16,18,20 28:1,4 28:4,11,13,14,16 29:4,8,12 30:2,8 30:16 32:22 33:22 34:8,22 35:3,5,7 36:16,19,21,22 37:4,6,19 39:9,10 39:25 40:4,12,14 40:15,17 41:8,15 42:8,12,20 43:15 44:3,4,8,13,16,22 court's 7:15 8:25 12:14 covered 38;16 39:14 create 9:25 creating 41:7 creative 17:23 crimes 31:17 criminal 8:21 20:15 26:6 28:22 40:5 criteria 17:6 Critton 2:8,9 4:2,2 4:13 5:13 6:3,3 14:4 15:3,14 16:4 16:12,15 31:7 35:7 35:8 37:5,18 38:20 39:23 41:16,25 1 29:16 cure 8:14,17 9:21 13:6 cures 14:12 current 22:5 it 16:24 1:243:14 17:16 24:11 26:10 26:15 40:11 D 1:13 2:8 damages 17:3 23:23 23:25 24:3,10,24 25:2 31:20 32:23 32:24 33:9 36:10 43:8 date 13:12,14 44:21 Datura 1:21 1;2 35:15 day 43:4 deal 9:23 14:13,14 15:15 16:24,24 18;6,9 deals 36:14 dealt 6:19 16:25,25 decide 10:11 22:5 37:7 38:8 decision 39:11 decisions 38:12,14 deem 11:19 deemed 10:4 defend 5:25 10:11 11:18 12:1,2 22:17 22:18,22,25 24:2 26:3 defendant 1:8 2:8 6:23 11:13 16:16 22:15,18 27:10 40:23 defendants 25:5 40:23 defendant's 16:23 defending 4:25 7:24 9:4 10;2,23 13:18 13:20,23 14:3,9,18 15:18 16:2,10 25:18 29:9 30:4 34:12 37:9 39:13 defends 26:3 defense 4;1,14 8:4,12 9:3,12,14 10:9 12:3 19:5,17 24:6 24:18 27:22 28:11 28:20 31:1 40:5 42:24 denied 22:5 deny 22:4,7 depending 18:2 40:14 14:23 22:24 34:20 39:16 depositions 10:13 14:22 19:20 22:12 22:20 23:15 32:25 38:17 desired 20:12 determine 9:8 developed 32:11 difference 36:13 different 6:5 12:21 16:19 23:7 40:18 direction 10:20 27:14 disadvantage 30:18 disagree 20:5,21 discovery 7:2,10,11 10;16,25 22:12 29:4 30:5,21 33:1 34;11,16,22 38:2 39:19,25 discretionary 6:19 6:21 discuss 9:22 23:6 discussing 42:4 discussion 16:22 disingenuous 19:15 dismiss 7;22 8:18 10:14 20:4 27:24 33:5,8,25 37:13,16 § 38:23 disposed 40:2 dispute 38:7 distinet 7:9 DISTRICT !:1,1,11 DIVISION 1:2 docket 6:17 8:25 12:14 documents 11:7 14:24 Doe 1:4,15,18,22 2:3 2:7:3:1,5,8,11 5:17 | 6:8,9,16 11:12 j 21:5 29:14,22 33:5 | 35:13 42:22 doing 8:9 29:9 34:9 37:22 39:24 done 12:3,4 13:17,19 § 13:24 14:2,7,17,20 14:25 15:6 17:14 20:16 25:4 29:4 41:10 doubt 9:14 dramatic 7:25 dramatically 7:8 dump 40;16 during 40:4 ——— —_—_k_—_— EB 44:17,17 each 17;24 18:16 East 1:17 2:15 Edwards 1:16 3:7,7 §:16,20,23 42:22 42:22 effect 9:7 17:5 efforts 41:10 either 9:3 10:5 30:20 40:3,25 elected 29:22 eligible 31:20 Elkins 1:20 email 44:24 embarrassment 32:3. enforce 21:17 25:17 enforcement 7:2 enforcing 25:10 enter 40;20 entered 33:12 40:19 jj entire 5:15 20:25 L 36:15 entitle 11:23 entitled 24:2 31:16 32:25 33:1 34:20 EFTA00184079

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

entry 6:17 8:25 12:14 enumerated 18:8,9 envisioned 40:22 Epstein 1:7 3:1 4:3,6 4:22 6:7 7:13,15 7:19 8:6,20 9:15 9:18,24 10:1,6,10 12:5,15 13:17,21 14:8 17:9 19:5,14 19:16 20:11,13 21:8 23:13 24:21 25:16 26:3,23 28:22 29:19,24 30:20 31:9,13 32:18,19,23 33:8 33:16 34:19 37:1 37:12 40:19 43:5,7 43:9,13,18 Epstein's 4:24 5:9,24 8:4 9:1 22:7 31:1 33:16 43:3,8 equities 12:16 error 27:7,7 ESQ 1:13,16,20,23 2:1,5,8,8,11,14,17 2:20 essence 7:9,12 8:3 10:2 12:3 35:23 37:1 39:1 40:13,15 essentially 28:22 et 1:4 ete 2:9 34:21 even 11;5,6,9 14:1 15:17 16:1 17:22 21:3,4 32:2 34:22 36:4 42:10 43:24 event 5:24 ever 5;11,14 everyone 30:3 42:3 everything 15:7 41:10 evidence 25:1 44:6 exact 21:18,22 28:20 exactly 10:24 example 14:20 16:21 17:16 34:17 36:1 37:10,11 39:5 40;11 except 8:20 11:25 exclusive 41:2 exclusively 28:6 33:7 exists 13:15 expecting 43;1,11 expires 37:23 explicitly 37:12 expose 5:1,25 31:24 re 22:7 expound 43:12 express 34:10 expressly 37:22 39:14 extensive 29:4 extent 28:10 extraordinary 9:13 41:10 extremely 31:4 eyes 26:24 43:19 form 11:4 Fort 1:18 2:16 forth 36:2 forward 9:8 13:11 Evell 2:5 3:16,17 17:6 19:1 21:1 e-mails 36:2 22:17 23:6 26:2 29:7 414,12 FR | found 31:10 F 44:17 four 9:5 fact 7:1 8:11 11:19 frankly 5:6 14;20 28:4 30:11 from 3:17 4:7 5:9 7:9 33:20 40:6 10:20,24 13:9 factors 11:23 14:13 15:9 16:23 fair 27:6 32:19,23 17:10 19:2 30:9 faith 38:24 39:8 32:13,13 34:22 familiar 42:5 35:10 37:22 41:4 families 32:5 43:2,24 far 14:25 21:17 front 9:5 12:19 23:10 24:24 30:3 25:10 42:3 fashion 8:4 fully 33:18 favor 12:16 further 29:10 Fax 44:23 future 9;12 10:5 fear 9:14 37:24 12:5 26:21,22 federal 5:3 28:6 29:21 31:13 32:22 federally 2:22 31:15 fees 21:8,10 25:10 ___G__—_— G27 Garela 1:20,20 3:10 few 35;8 43:18 3:10 27:20,21 field 7:8 28:15,18 29:11 Fifth 6:24 gather 22:21 fight 32:24 36:10 gave 16:1 file 21:4 28:13 30:22 | general 39:24 32:22 35:18 38:18 generally 10:22 40:15 ing 24:11 25:19 filed 5:11,16,21,23 | girls 20:7 23:5 25:20 6:7,10 10:8 11:9 32:1 15:18,23,24 20:20 | give 12:5 14:1 42:6 28:3 30:21 33:4,6 | given 28:4 34:1 35:17,19 36:1 2 44:13 36:24 37:15,19 glaring 18:21 35:10 38:23 40:9,12,13 11:16 42:25 43:3,23 go 12:10 15:13 22:17 files 35:19,19,20 24:24 26:2 28:8 filing 30:5 31:6 41:5 29:7 31:24 38:5,13 filings 7:8 goal 32:17 filter 11:7 going 3:18 5:25 12:4 financial 23:12 12:10 13:23,25 find 5:6 6:13 19:15 14:11,13 15:18 19:25 23;11 29:24 16:2 19:5 22:4,6,9 39:20 22:18,23 23:10,14 firm's 6:6 23:24 26:5 28:8,11 first 5:9 16:14 19:3 29:8 36:2 38:6,8 26:18 30:23 43:20 48:12,13,16 39:10 fit 36:4 PL 1:15,18,21,24 2:3 39:15 41:22 43:1 43:12 2:6,10,13,16,23 Goldberger 2:11,12 44:23 4:5,6 38:10 Flagler 2:2,6,9 gone 15:7 floor 32:21 good 3:6,9,10,12,13 FLORIDA 1:1,4 3:15,16,22,23 4:4 focused 15:15 4:5,9,11,16,18,20 17:16 38:10,24 39:8 Government 7:7,9 7:18 8:1,2,7 9:21 35:6 38:20 41:13 10:8 11:19 12:6 42:10 44:12 13:1,2,2,9,11,13 HONORABLE 1:11 14:1,5 15:23 16:19 | hope 31:22 17:11 18:4,12,17 | hopefully 13:3 20:11,11 21:13,14 | Horowitz 1:13,14 23:10,11 25:11 3:4,4 29:13,13 29:9 33:19 34:18 30:6 34:23 36:2,1741:3 | horrible 21:23 43:2 humiliated 20:25 Government's 5:6,8 | hypocritical 19:25 7:25 9:10 12:20,23 15:16 18:22 25:13 30:14 37:9 idea 17:1 31:22 grant 22:4 101:22 3:11 granted 22:2 impact 16:18 great 7:23 8:20 9:19 | important 41:24 10:22 12:17 15:15 | impose 27:4 20:8,24 incident 24:14 ind 22:3 incidents 17:25 guess 36:17 38:6,7 incredible 7:21 guilty 17:11 41:8 incredulous 19:15 indicate 44:3 indicated 30:13 indicates 43:3 1:23 hand 32:9,9 41:25 indict 7:20,20,22 hanging 11:19 8:13,16,17 12:10 happen 14:13 22:6 12:24 15:10 18:23 happens 28:3 21:14 happy 30:16 36:13 36:21 indicted 9:17 10:6 10:22 27:21 30:15 34:14 investigated 31:14 age 47 harassing 39:16 indictment 8:19 10:7 } harassment 39:18 individual 18:16 harm 10:1 41:7 40:7 having 27:2,11 individuals 10:18 31:24 41:7,8 17:1 35:15 37:3 hear 5:9 26:12 41:21 | information 22:21 42:24 43:2,10 44:14 heard 19:2 41:13 initial 12:19 15:21 44:6 initially 15:24 hearing 1:10 4:21 injury 10:23 23:22 30:24 43:14 innocent 27:5 held 33:9 inquiries 30:13 help 30:1 1,16 32:15 inquiry 7:15 15:16 helpful 5:7 25:12 instance 7;18,24 30:14 42:7 44:14 9:18 10;10 11:3,17 her 26:4 28:4 13:5 16:14 Herr 2:21 44:20,21 | instances 16:4 hesitant 32:1 intended 28:21 hoy 22:19 intent 21:19 him 4:23 7:20,20,22 | intention 9:19 26:19 | 8:13,16,17 9:15,20 26:20,20 27:16 11:23 12:521:14 | interest 23:12 24:15 25:10,11 interested 13:17 26:4,5,13 28:24 14:33 { 38:11 40;20 41:11 | interpretation 16:20 42:25 38:22 himself $;1,3 interrogatories Honor 3:10,13,16,21 14:24 19:20 4:2,5,9,13,17,19 interrupt 37:4 5:13,16 6:4 12:12 | introduced 20:16 19:1,7 23:1 24:5 intrusive 29:5 25:22,25 26:7,12 invasive 19:22 EFTA00184080

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

investigation 10:18 K limitation 25:2 43:17 need 24:22 25:23 38;2 43:7 Katherine 2:5 3:16 Hmitations 36:4,7,11 | mean 18:10 33:22 negotiate 32:18 investigations 22:13 | yeep 24:21 41:20 34:14 39:7 43:24 | negotiated 27:3,3 34:11 KENNETH 1:11 limited 4:21 8:3 14:5 | means 32:24 neither 43:21 invited 27:6 key 32:9 17:12 20:19 23:25 | members 4:13 never 11:9 26:20 involvement 6:6 kind 30:10 36:12 30:19 memo 7:14 28:9 40:19,22 irreparable 9:16 39:11,22 limits 28:5 memorandum 27:23 | newspapers 23:5 10:1 41:7 knew 27:1 Lindsay165@aol.... | mentioned 44:11 nobody 11:14 ISIDRO 1:20 know 4:22 6:17 8:21 44:24 merits 22:1 none 13:25 issue 4:23 6:5,11,19 11:14 12:2 13:9,17 list 17:1,2,6 35:16 Mermelstein 1:14 non-contesting 28:5 7:4 11:25 12:18,22 14:21 15:5,7 16:22 36:8 38:11 met 17:6 33:7 non-position 9:10 14:14 15:25 16:2 19:23 22:6 23:12 litigation 7:4,5 9:13 | Miami 1:15 2:3,6,23 | non-prosecution 5:2 16:13,22 18:12,22 | 5-9 27:1 30:12,20 | 15:8 16:18,25 2:23 44:22,23 5:11 6:2 8:6 13:24 | 21:18 28:10,16 34:4 32:13 37:19 21:18 22:14 23:12 | Michael 2:8 4:3 14:19 15:20 19:6 33:4,14,24 42:8,23 | 39-10,1741:17,21 | 31:24 33:16 34:39 microphone 26;13 22:8 24:1 27:25 42:24 knowing 26:25 38:5 | 34:15.15,16 36:25 | might 14:2,12 22:14 | 28:2,5,19,25 29:25 issued 14:25 knowledge 5:13 36:25 39:24 29:5 37:16,17 Bls1L 32:6,8 33:2. | issues 4:21 24:10,13 | 43:11 lives 21:21 million 17:21 33:12,18,19 34:3,6 | 25:21,23 35:9 known 21:4 32:14 Jong 31:17 37:14 minimum 17:3 25:3 34:10 36;19 37:11 36:15 39:25 40:3 | knows 11:3 13:2 longer 20:7 372 43:1,6,16 issuing 22:20 39:19 Yook 12:14 18:6 minimums 24:25 non-2255 24:4,6 ie4i:l 36:16 minors 20:7 normal 30;4 39:13 Tack 41:22 looked 6:11 minute 18:13 41:14 | North 1:23 2:9,23 S| indies 20:23 21:3,20 mistakes 13:4 nothing 13:15 24:12 71:16 Lake 1:24 _____M__ | money 17:20 24:15 } Jack 2:11 4:5 language 18:14 M 1:20 more 8:3 17:23 notice 8:13,16 9:21 jackpot 32:9 32:11 MA 2:18 23:25 30:25 39:12 13:6 14:23 22:24 jail 41:7 LARRY 2:21 44:21 made 15:10,17 16:6 42:7 31:8,8 39:6,16 Jane 1:4,15,18,22 Las 1:17 20:12 31:20 43:13 | morning 3:6,9,10,12 noticed 14:22 2:3,73:5,5,7,11 | jnst 33:22 41:24 44:4 3:13,15,16,22,23 | notification 15:3,4 5:17 6:8,9,16 Lauderdale 1:18 | major 11:25 4:4,5,9,11,16,18 16:8 11:12 21:4 29:14 2:16 make 8:21 13:4 4:20 NPA 8:5,11,15,24 29:22 33:5 35:13 | daw 7:1 27:24 28:9 15:21 19:19 23:8 | most 7:7 13:3 15:24 | 9:1,9,16,19,22 42:22 lawsuit 25:18,19 23:13 26:2,18 18:21 32:1235:10 | 10:4,19,22 11:20 f Jay 2:20 4:18 lawsuits 30:17 27:24 29:1,16 34:5 | 41:24 12:8,15,24 13:7,15 } Jeffrey 1:7 37:12 lawyers 8:21 9:4,7 38:12,13 39:11 motion 1:10 4:22 6:7 14:10 16:8 18:14 jeopardize 9:15 10:23,23 17:22 4i:14 12:22 15:2420:4 | 20:22 21:19,19 jeopardy 15:17 27:1 38:10,11,21 making 42:7 43:9,24 22:6 27:24 33:4,14 23:9 24:12,15,16 join 26:11,15 40:23 44:5 33:15,25 34:2,11 24:18,20 25:2,7 Josefsberg 2:1,2,5 | tay 8:10 man 12:24 37:15,20 38:2,23 35:12,24 36:14,14 3:18,20,21,23 19:7 | jeast 35:10 mandate 7:24 8:20 39:8 41:5 42:23 39:3 41:4,6,11,18 19:7,10 21:25 23:1 | teave 33:17,19 8:21 10:3 43:4 44:1 42:1,2,3 24:5 25:25 26:7,11 | Lefkowitz 2:20 4:18 many 20;23 31:3 motions 10:14 17:15 | number 15:9 16:21 26:12,16 27:13 4:18 21:5 30:5 35:21 17:7,9,14,21,24 31:6 32:17 33:6 35:14 39:3 41:13 38:18 moye 7:22 8:18 19:1 32:1 35:15,20 numerous 23:21 left 10:2 legal 10:13 24:10,13 MARRA L:11 41:16 42:10,16,17 | 35:21 38:1240:3 | Martin 2:17 4:16 19:20 21:17,21 43:17 41:5 43:9 Master 21:2 32:16 37:12 Josefsberg's 33:25 legally 40:7 matter 20:15 37:13 | moving 9:7 33:8 object 7:2,10,10 35:11 36:5 legitimate 38:7 44:19 41:4,12 objection 36:18 IR 2:8 tess 41:14 matters 21:11 much 23:13 30:16 | objections 11:5,6 Judge 1:11 15:12 | aets.9 13:10 19:19 | may 33 5 72,10 30:25 42:7 obligation 21:9 21:229:13 35:15 | jetter 17:10 21:19 9:9,12 10:4,17 multiple 18:15 40:15 30:12 31:8 42:8,12 letters 16:6 11:19 13:17,18 40:16 obtain 11:7 judgment 22:16 liability 17:12 18:7,7 | 14:18 15:12 16:18 | multitude 8:12 obviously 10:20 June 1:5 13:12 20:3,6,16,19 23:16 16:19 17:12 19:8 | myself 16:5 42:17 34:18 jurisdiction 28:1,6 23:17,20 24:8,18 19:16 20:4 21:11 occurred 17:25 just 18:23 20:15,16 24:22,23 25:6,) 1 21:17,21 23:6 ___ EN | oceurs 26:21 22:3,6 24:20 26:1 | 29.20'32:23 369 | 27:22 30:20 32:14 N 44:22 off 39:8 29:15,16 30:23 40:22 41:1 34:17 35:16,20 names 11:9 23:5 offender 41:9 35:8 37:8,10 39:24 | table 33:9 39:6 40:8,16 41:6 ettanee | 1 BA.10,15 40:4,17 42:24 . -9 25: 41:13,13 33:10,11 43:14,23 44:3,11 airy 252 maybe 12:17 13:10 offenses 18:16 31:13 f limit 23:23 24:2 17:20 30:10 42:8 | necessary 22:22 41:5 offered 37:2 EFTA00184081

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

office 4:8,10 26:20 15:6,10 41:5 point 6:18 14:12 31:15 reference 27:25 27:4 43:5,12,25 paragraphs 36:15 26;16,23 28:14 prosecuting 37:25 referred 31:6 44:5 paraphrasing 6;20 29:15 36:12 43:23 | prosecution 26:6 refers 41:16 Official 2:22 44:22 | Park 2:18 pointed 14:20 28:23 29:6,7 34:25 | refusal 9:10 officials 7:2 part 10:18 18:9 portion 32:24 36:14 | prospect 16:15 refuses 8:7 often 40:2 20:23 21:7 23:9,20 | portions 5:15 protect 32:7 refusing 25:5 okay 3:25 5:19,21 34:16 39:23 40:2,5 | posed 11:25 protecting 32:7 regard 9:11,12,13 18:10 30:2 44:1 posing 8:4 provide 31:8 36:13 10:12,13,14,14 Olas 1:17 particular 6:15,18 position 5:5,8 6:4 7:7 36:21 11:4 12:19 14:9 old 31:18,18 7:24 8:22 9:18 7:25 9:16,20 10:12 | provided 16:9 32:12 16:18 18:23 35:12 once 22:5 11:17 13:5 10:13 11:21,22 provides 9:22 36:23 one 4:23 7:17 11:25 | parties 9:23 11 6 12:12,17,23 14:8,8 | providing 318 regarding 6:24 17:24 18:5,16,20 16:21 22:21 39:20 14:15 15:16 16:16 | provision 6:12 8:11 23:15 37:9 18:21 20:1,8 22:24 | partner 3:18 4:3 16:17 17:4,7 18:13 | 29:19,25 34:10,25 regardless 31:17,18 31:11 36:24 39:10 | parts 19:25 21:17 18:17 19:19 20:13 37:11 38:3 39:17 | registering 41:9 40:16 42:23 44:11 | party Li:L1 14:25 22:1,11 25:8 30:14 | 39:18 relate 9:3 30:1 only 13:22 14:3 30:12,17 36:18 31:12 32:10,15,20 | provisions 13:6,7 related 30:24 33:24 17:24 23:20 25:4 9:11 10:5 12:3,4 | 34:8 35:3,21 36:23 psychologically relates 8:12 29:20 36:6 39:1,3 | pay 17:3 21:8,10 37:9 40:10 41:17 21:24 relating 29:19 42:23 25:5 43:5 publish 23:5 release 41:9 open 26:24 43:19 pending 6:15 9:5 positions 30:20 41:5 | pure 24:8 relevant 19:22 opportunity 8:14,17 17:15 21:6 possible 30:17 31:4 purpose 21:19,23 remain 42:13 9:21 people 23:6 44:15 28:20 remedy 7:20 8:17 posed 33:21 per 24:14,14,14,14 possibly 34:9 pursuant 25:15 32:8 29:21 33:20 34:7 opposite 20:22 21:18 in 28:21 posting 25:22 417 41:2 21:22 28:20 perfect 36:1 39:5 potential 5:3 15:2 pursue 23;12 remember 23:19 opposition 27:24 20:24 27:22 | 28:2 pursuing 22:12,15 remind 44:3 mn 7:23 period 9:21 34:4 potentially 10:18 put 9:15 18:21 32:10 | remote 10:8 order 6:16 12:14 373,14 15:19 41:6 rep 35:14 22:21 30:23,24 permitted 24:6,18 power 13:2 puts 18:25 34:4 replies 10:15 33:17,17 36:19 permitting 42:18 practical 10:25 15:9 40:10 41:11 reply 35:22 44:15 person 36:11 practice 34:11 38:3 ___. | REPORTED 2:21 ordinarily 26:3 personal 10:23 predicate 20:8,15 Reporter 2;22,22 34:12 23:21 prepared 20:5 27:15 question 8:3,7 9:2 44:22 ordinary 27;10 perspective 16:23 present 5:5 11:15 12:1 30:25 represent 21:3 32:12 | 39:13 35:10 presents 9:7 questions 42:1 35:15 originally 6:5 pertains 29:20 press 43:10 quite 19:10 representation Orseck 2:2,5 3:17 phone 4:12,14,15 pressure 21:15 en 26:18 other 7:1,17 16:4,5 42;18,19 presume 23:24 RE representatives 47 17:22 22:13,18 picking 12:13 pretty 8:1 R44:17 43:9 23:6,21,22 24:1 place 31:12 37:14 prior 6:6 8:25 12:14 raise 16:2 36:11 25:21 26:8 32:8 43:20 36:19 raised 15:25 16:13 34:9,1L1 36:12 plaintiff 3:7,14 privacy 19:22 32:7 18:5,21 19:13 42:18 43:8 44:10 24:15 30:4 34:20 | probably 35:18 36:3 28:10 33:14 35:9 otherwise 39:14 43:7 40;1 36:13 out 8:8 10:16 22:24 | plaintiffs 1:5,13 3:4 | problem 14:12 22:22 | read 37:20 42:2,23 26:16,23 28:22 3:24 11:8 17:8,14 23:2,3 28:18 reading 18:18 23:19 30:11 36:12 38:17 17:22 19:3 22:14 | procedure 32:16 ready 29:7 requirement 33:8 39:20 44:15 23:7,24 27:5 29:1 34:24 real 9:6 10:8 36:11 | resist 34:18,23 outside 13:18,19 29:12,14,20 30:9 | proceed 12:10 18:23 418 resolve 42:8 24:17 36:7 39:16 43:8 32:22 38:13 really 12:2 18:11 resolved 7:4 19:12 over 11:19 24:24 plaintiff's 19:4 26:8 proceeding 6;15,15 30:20,23 33:14 24:16 own 12;21 38:13 36:16 proceedings 4:23,25 36:17 respect 22:14 playing 7:8 44:19 Realtime 2:22 respectfully 7:6 14:4 Plaza 2:18 process 39:25 reason 6:14 7:3 respond 20:5 30:13 Pacer 30:19 plead 17:11 18:10,11 production 14:24 29:23 33:11 34:2 44:9 pages 7:14 27:23 pleading 7:14 31:10 19:20 reasons 18:5,20 response 5:6 7:14 28:9 33:4 40:9,14 prohibited 38:3,4,18 34:19 40:8 8:2 11:20 15:16,23 § paint 29:17 pleadings 23:4 31:3 prohibits 37:22 recapitulating 41:1 18:22 33:15 34:1,1 } Palm 1:2,4,21 2:10 32:13 proof 20:16 received 5:5 15:3,4 35:17,21 2:13 please 41:22 proper 25:1 27:14 20:4 responses 10:14 paper 10:16 13:7 pled 17:8,16 20:14 27:15 recent 7:7 15:24 30:21 35:8 papers 8:10,16 9:25 41:8 prosecuted 20:13 records 34:21 restitution 29:2 10:8 11:21 12:20 | Podhurst 2:2,5 3:17 26:4 27:11 29:10 | redacted 36:14 31:16,23 EFTA00184082

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

restitution/damages 32:19 restrictions 43:18 seen 5:14,15 selected 35:15 self-fulfilling 24:23 Special 21:2 32:16 specific 8:2 11:1 16:24 17:13 30:25 suggest 8:10,23 suggested 12:13,21 14:16 15:5,6 36:3 12:24,25 13:6,6 17:16 18:18,23 19:14 25:13 27:6,6 f result 10:21 15:19 self-incrimination 43:25 44:4 39:2 40:8,9 27:22 28:18 29:15 18:20 6:25 specifically 43:7 suggesting 16:7 30:23 39:6,8 42:1 resulted 32:17 send 10:16 38:17 spector 11:18 suggestion 15:17 42:2,6 43:15 44:14 review 31:3 36:22 39:6 speculative 10:9 41:25 44:10 third 11:6,11 14:25 Richard 1:23 3:13 sends 22:23 spirit 25:20 suing 25:10 22:21 39:20 26:10 sent 14:22,23,24 spoken 30:3 suit 20:21 21:4 32:22 third-party 19:11 ride 40:17 16:6 17:10 39:15 | standard 11:1 suits 26:25 21:16 25:14 right 3:24 6:24 39:19 standpoint 10:25 summary 40:3 thoughts 27:2,5 12:25 13:3 25:8,14 | separate §;20 17:17 15:9 supporting 15:16 threatening 44:1 44:23 37:2041:3 | serve 11:5,6 start 23:15 supposed 20:18 three 41:14 through 3:5 6:9 1:7 11:16 29:14,22 31:5,24 32:6,16 til 14:2 42:20 43:14 44:8 rights 13:5 25:16 32:7 risk 9:6 10:6,7 18:25 set 12:21 13:13 18:4 31:22 36:9 settle 21:8 settling 21:10 25:5 state 3:3 9:6 28:4 29:4 40:12,17 41:8 stated 3:25 statement 33:23 22:25 23:17 24:9 29:1 sure 5:7 14:11 26:2 29:16 33:22 37:25 38:6 40:10 41:6,11 | severely 21:21 statements 43:9 Susan 3:17 time 6:10,11,12,15 risks 21:5 sex 41:9 States 1:1,11 2:22 system 31:23 6:19,20 13:3 17:5 Robert 2:1,8 4:2 6:3 | sexual 23:6 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 s/Larry 44:20 21:12 31:18,19 role 25:13 37:7 shape 11:4 9:24 10:6 13:21 es ee ee es 34:4 36:3 37:2 Room 2:23 shield 29:1 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 TY 882 Rosenfeldt 1:17 show 36:22 42:11 22:10,19 29:9 39:4 T 44:17,17 times 17:19 18:2 } rose-colored 11:16 Sid 3:10 44:5,22 take 7:12 9:12 10:3,3 today 8:4 13:11 143 Rothstein 1:17 side 7;17,17 State's 27:16 10;:12,13,21 11:12 14:6,6 15:5 28:17 RPR-CM-RMB-F... sideline 8:9 statute }7:4 18:3 11;18,21,22 14:7 31:9,19 35:23 44;21 silent 29:23 20:6 24:14 28:7 14:21 16:16,16 36:21 43:14 44:11 RPR-RMR-FCRR... simifar 35:18 43:2 29:21 36:4,7,11 18:2 19:20 22:10 44:14 today's 13;12,14 2:21 simply 11:17 41:20 27:9,10 29:3 33:1 rate 39:9 42:13 since 20:20 statutory 6:12 24:25 34:15,20 35:20 told 23:20 35:23 rules 22:3 25:1 34:24 | sir 19:9 35:8 37:5 25:3 34:18 37:2 38:7,17 41:14,22 _ | tools 10:25 40:15 42:13 41:15 stay 4:23 6:8,19,21 taken 7:7 9:11,21 tort 10:24 23:22 ruling 8:25 42:7 sit 8:9 7:3 11:24 12:16,19 14:9 15:5 30:20 24:46 rulings 19:21 23:8 sitting 42:3 12:23 15:25 19:16 41:10 43:5 totally 20:5,21 23:1 25:2 27:13,15 30:6 | situation 12:6 20:25 21:2222:2,4,4,5,7 | takes 18:17 41:24 ! run 22:18 25:12 26:24 24:22 25:21 30:24 | taking 9:8 14:23 TRANSCRIPT 1:10 running 21:13 23:14 sole 29:21 33:14,15,16,21 19:17 22:12,20 transcription 44:19 27:16 solely 12:15 32:10 34:2,2 37:21,22 23:15 25:20 34:8 | trauma 32:33 | some 4:7 5:4 7:2,10 42:5 43:4 44:1 4:5 traumatized 21:21 _| 7:11,12 9:1,8,9 stayed 25:19 talk 6:18 25:23 tried 31:3 32:6 same 6:10,16 8:3 10;16 15:12 16:1,8 staying 21:18 team 4:14 12:3 troubled 43:24 20:13 27:12 31:12 17:22 20:25 21:3 | steps 27:10 telephone 2:4,19,20 true 17:12 32:10 35:21 38:21 30:18 35:8 38:7 still 5:7 3:19 try 23:11 30:16 satisfied 20:9 313 Street 2:2,6,9 tell 11:13,14 42:12 32:18 34:17 44:15 saying 7:10 8:1 someone 10:17 19:22 | strictly 11:15 telling 21:13 22:9 trying 10:11 22:3 17:17 19:12,16 24:20 26:3 34:12 | strikes 36:12 temporary | 1:1 28:25 32:9 37:8 20:6,7,8 21:14 34:17 37:16 39:15 | stuck 18:14 36:10 terminates 34:4 39:20 25:5 33:9 37:10 something 13:19,24 stuff 34:19 terms 9:3 22:7 33:20 | turn 12:8 39:5 14:17 15:24 20:19 | subject $:3 26:5,21 thank 19:1,2 27:8,21 two 4:13 9:23 19:25 says 8:15 13:7 17:11 26:17 28:13 34:9 27:13 30:6 30:8,15 35:5,6 21:11 36:24 18:13 35:1 38:5 37:21,23 38:4,9 submit 7:6 14:4 42:17 44:7,13 type 12:15 22:13 40:14 41:3 39:9 43:2 submitted 42:15 their 3:3,25 7:14,14 35:17 39:18 scheduled 4:21 Sometimes 13:4 subpoena 11:9 34:17 8:10,16 9:25 11:8 22:16 36:24 seal 5:18,23 somewhat 6:5 34:20 11:20 12:21 13:7 typical 11:2,4 22:15 sealed 42;14 soon 44:15 subpoenaes 11:5 14:21 15:6,10 23:3,4.8 second 20:23 27:2,5 | sorry 15:14 27:19 subpoenas 14:25 21:21 23:6 27:5 30:24 36:25 37:4 | sort 32:10 33:17 22:21 38:18 39:19 29:21 32:5,7,7 Secondly 41:20 subsequently 6:9 themselves 32:4 ultimately 39:9 secret 17:1 9:16 thing 25:4 27:12 unable 29:19 Section 33:7 substantial 9:6 28:21 31:11 39:11 | uncertainty 9:14 gee 4:7 15:11 20:12 11:22,23 13:2 things 11:3 38:15 uncomfortable seek 23:25 18:25 41:11 39:22 43:10 23:11 seeking 6:7 24:3 sue 7:17 think 6:8,14 8:15 9:4 | under $:17,17,23 seeks 34:22 suffered 32:3 9:22 10:19 11:22 7:20 8:18 9:25 EFTA00184083

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

10:1,11,22 12:6,10 12:20 13:7,8 16:8 16:17,23 17:2,4,8 17:12,18 18:4,8,19 20:9,18,19,21 21:9 22:7 24:8,11,18,20 24:20 25:1,6 28:6 30:12 31:21 32:21 32:23 33:7,10 34;18,23 35:24 36:5,8,9 37:1,13 38:25 39:6,14 40:6 40:21,23 41:1 understand 5;7 14:15 21:25 22:3 23:24 29:25 30:14 31:7 37:8 38:20 39:25 understanding 20:10 unfair 42:2 unilateral 12:22 unilaterally 7:13 12:24 United t;1,11 2:22 4:8 5:1,5,17 6:1 9:24 10:6 13:21 14:8,17 16:7 19:14 22:10,19 29:8 39:4 44:5,22 unless | 1:7 34:25 unlimited 40:21 until 37:23 urge 22:9 use 10:25 11:8 20;24 23:11 28:25 40:11 used 28:19 U.S 2:15 4:10 7:1,9 8:6 12:8,12 16:16 26:19 27:4,18,19 43:5,11,25 U.S.A 2:16 U.S.C 33:7 various 3;1 10:25 very 4:21 5:7 11:1,2 11:20 12:21 16:19 16:24 17:12,12 23:11 29:4 32:1 35:18 38:10 40:18 42:2 43:18 44:14 Via 2:4,19,20 victim 37:13 victims 20:12 21:20 28:23 31:12,16,23 32:13 33:18 35:16 39:20 41:17,18,19 41:19 2:144:9 4:10 17:10 30:10 30:15 33:24 34:14 35:2,4,6,12 39:4 44:9,12 violate 19:18 34:6 violated 5:2 14:2 39:6 violates 8;5,11 33:2 42:25 violating 9:16,19 38:17 41:6 43:13 violation 8:23 9:9 10:4,19 11:20 12:7 {2:9 13:15,19,20 13:23 14:10,19 15:2 16:7 18:19 24:19 25:19,20 29:10 34;10,13,24 35:12,24 37:17 40:25 41:4 violations 17:17,18 17:24 18:1,16 19:23 40:16 43:17 43:22 voluminous 31:4 vs 1:6 3:1 5:17 Ww w2s wait 8:10 18:13 42:12 waive 25:14 waiving 18:7 want 8:9,10 LL:15 12:2 16:22 17:20 21:4,4,5,14 22:1,6 25:17 26:2,8,16,18 26:23 27:4 29:16 35:7 37:21 41:17 41:21 42:14,21 44:9 wanted 11;11 14:21 17:5 20:12 29:15 42:24 443 wants 11:14 13:3 19:2,16,20 23:4 24:24 33:16 34:2 warranted 6:22 wasn't 28:21 way 8:23 9:9 10:5,16 10:19 11:4 13:16 14:10 19:23 25:1 25:18 27:3,4 28:22 28:23 ways 30:18 wealthy 32:13 weigh 26:11 Weinberg 2:17 4:16 4:16 Weiss 2:12 well 7:10 8:20 10:22 11:12,12,13,13 12:17 13:16 14:11 15:7 16:18 17:15 17:23 18:10,11 33:24 35:12,19,20 36:5 39:4 40:13 went 6:18,22 26:23 32:16 43:19 were 6:10 14:6 15:10 18:7 19:11 21:2 29:23 31:17,18 32:1,4,22 34:17 36:24 43:1 44:10 weren't 32:9 ‘West 1:2,4,21 2:2,6 2:10,13 we'll 7:19,22 8:16 17:23 26:13 40:17 we're 9:8 10:2 12:10 13:14 19:10,12 20:5 27:15 28:17 39:1 43:14 44:2 we've 15:4 35:23 36:5 43:12 whatsoever 27:7 while 32:7 34:16 35:14 whole 20;12 38:11 wide 26:24 43:19 willful 8:23 12:7 willfully 9:19 Willits 1:23 3:13,14 26:10,10,14,15 27:12,19 win 29:5 withdraw 28:8,11 wonderful 28:23,24 word 24:21 worried 39:22 worry 41:11 Worth 1:24 writing 28:13 written 5:6 21:9 23:4 40:8 102 6:8 35:19 36:1,3 40:9 41:21 103 21:5 35:19 104 35:19 105 35:20 11:10 44:16 12.1:5 9:4 12th 13:12 13 7:14 9:4 147:14 150 17;19,20 18:2 24:12 1727:23 28:9 1833:7 18205 1:14 19 27:23 28:9 23:5 5:17 6:9,16 29;14,22 20 2:18 17:25 18:2 2009 1:5 13:12 22.7:21 10:2 224 1:21 2255 16:23 17:4,17 17:18 18:8,12,14 20:2,9,19,21 23:21 23:22,23 24:8,17 24:21 25:6 31:21 32:21,23 33:7,10 36:6,23 37:13 41:2 2290 1:23 25 2:2,6 250 2:12 26 20:4 —_—_—_x_—_ x19 ——_k__— yeah 41:3 yesterday 21:9 young 20:23 21:3,20 —_————_——_—_ —_—_i__—_ $15 17:20 $150,000 32:21 $50,000 17;5 32:21 37:2 —_—__&_—_ 02116 2:18 08 12:18,18 08-80119-CIV-M... 13 31:18 30 17:16,19,19 30-count 40;12 Os 800 2:3,7 2:23 1:15 $0 18:2 24:12 —_——_L_—_——_ 71:18 3:5 29:14,22 44:23 305/S23-5639 44:23 33 6:17 9:1 33128 2:23 44:23 33130 2:3,6 33160 1:15 33301 1:18 33394 2:16 33401 1:2) 2:10,13 33461 1:24 34 21:20 44:18 11:12 15:17 10 36:15 10th 1:23 101 2:3,7 33:5 35:13 35:17 38:23 39:3,7 . | 400 2:23 44:22 401 1:17 $ 1:18 6:9 Sth 12:18 —_—————————— —__4—_—_ —_s—__—- EFTA00184084

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA, FOURTH DISTRICT CASE NO: 4D09-2554 L.T. No. 2008 CF 9381 JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, | THE PALM BEACH POST, Respondents. / [ll 's SEALED REQUEST TO DISMISS THE PETITION FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Respondent, a. 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 appeal is provided by Rule 9.130, A non-final order for which no appeal is provided by Rule 9.130 is reviewable by petition for certiorari only in limited circumstances. The order must depart from the essential requirements of law and thus cause material injury to the petitioner throughout the remainder of the proceedings below, effectively leaving no adequate remedy on appeal. Allstate Ins. Co. I Langston, 655 So.2d 91, 94 (Fla. 1995); Barad & Co, I EFTA00184085

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

McGuire, 670 So.2d 153 (Fla. 4" DCA 1996); see, Menke I} Broward School Bd, 916 So.2d 8 (Fla. 4" DCA 2005). The requirement of irreparable harm is jurisdictional. Allstate; Barad & Co. A petitioner's failure to demonstrate the satisfaction of this jurisdictional element should result in dismissal of a petition for writ of certiorari. Barad & Co. As shown below, petitioner fails to meet this jurisdictional threshold. 2. Disclosure of the NPA will not cause petitioner irreparable harm. a. There is nothing in the NPA that is confidential and disclosure will not cause petitioner irreparable harm (“there’s no cat in the bag”). Petitioner does not cite a single term, provision, sentence or word in the NPA! that is confidential. There are no “confidentiality provisions” in the NPA, contrary to petitioner’s misleading assertions (i.e., petition at page 10). There is not a single detail about this sex offender’s plea deal with the U.S. Attorney or the state attorney that should be hidden from the public. A page-by-page review of the NPA demonstrates this. The first page discusses that local law enforcement have conducted investigations of | The undersigned attorneys were given a co of the NPA through the federal proceedings before Judge Marra (see *s response to the petition filed herewith), but, inexplicably, undersigned was not provided a copy of the Addendum. We have never seen it and do not know its contents. 2 EFTA00184086

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

petitioner; that he was charged by indictment with solicitation of prostitution; that the U.S. Attorney and FBI have conducted their own investigation of his crimes against the United States from 2001-2007 including crimes for inducing minor females to engage in prostitution; conspiring to use interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct; using interstate commerce to induce minor females to engage in prostitution; traveling in interstate commerce to engage in illicit sexual conduct with minor females; recruiting minors to engage in a commercial sexual act. The second page provides that petitioner wishes to resolve globally his state and federal charges; that the interests of the state, the United States and petitioner would be served by so doing; that prosecution by the U.S. Attorney shall be deferred in favor of prosecution by the state provided petitioner abides by the agreement; that should petitioner violate any conditions of the agreement he may be prosecuted for any offense; that if petitioner fulfills the terms of the agreement, the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute him for any offense. The third page discusses that he will plead guilty to state charges of solicitation of prostitution and solicitation of minors to engage in prostitution and be registered as a sex offender; he will agree to a county jail sentence of 18 months for the two charges followed by 12 months EFTA00184087

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

community control; the state judge must approve the sentence; the agreement does not preclude petitioner and the state attorney from agreeing to recommend additional charges or additional terms of probation or incarceration; petitioner waives his rights; petitioner shall provide the US. Attorney with copies of his agreements with the state attorney. Page four provides that the United States shall provide petitioner with a list of victims; the United States shall select an attorney to represent the victims; if any victims files suit based on federal claims petitioner will not contest them; he is not admitting liability by signing this agreement; that he will use his best efforts to plead guilty by a certain date. Page five provides that he will not be treated differently than any other offender as to county jail gain time; that the parties anticipate this agreement will not be made part of any public record but if there is a Freedom of information Act Request or compulsory process on the United States for this agreement, the U.S. will give petitioner notice before disclosing the agreement; that the U.S. Attorney cannot guarantee what the state attorney does; that the United States will not prosecute potential co- conspirators; that ongoing grand jury proceedings will be halted. EFTA00184088

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Page six provides there is consideration for the NPA and a breach allows the United States to elect to terminate it; that petitioner waives certain rights. Finally, page seven provides that petitioner has read the agreement and understands it. Where is there a single confidential term, provision, sentence or word in the NPA the disclosure of which will cause petitioner irreparable harm? The answer is there is none. Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to learn that he and the U.S. Attorney agreed he will be sentenced in state court to a mere /8 months county jail time (in his home county, not a prison, with all the usual gain time and work release benefits not available in the state prison system, so he serves about 60% of the sentence) plus 12 months non-sexual offender community control, for solicitation of a minor to engage in prostitution, a second degree felony punishable by up to 15 years in prison, and felony solicitation of prostitution, a third degree felony punishable by up to 5 years in prison? Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to learn that if petitioner fulfills the terms of the agreement, the U.S. Attorney will not EFTA00184089

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

prosecute him for a single federal crime he committed against multiple minor female victims? Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to learn the state attorney will only prosecute him for just two of his crimes involving only just two of his minor female victims and that he does not face any further state prosecution for all his other crimes against the many more minor female victims identified by the U.S. Attorney? Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to know that the other participants in his criminal enterprise for procuring minor females to engage in prostitution, co-conspirators Hn Rin Lesley Groff and cry ty will not be prosecuted at all? Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to learn that an attorney will be appointed to represent his other minor female victims in civil lawsuits; that, if they bring only a single specified federal cause of action, he will not contest, but not admit, liability, but if they bring other causes of action such as battery or intentional infliction of emotional distress, he can defend in any manner he choices? Will it cause petitioner irreparable harm for the public to know that the U.S. Attorney and the state attorney have utterly compromised their roles EFTA00184090

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

as prosecutors and protectors of the public safety by entering into this sweetheart deal with petitioner? As in the old Wendy’s commercial, “Where’s the beef?” b. The parties to the NPA did not agree it would be confidential; in fact, the United States agreed the NPA would be publicly disclosed if a Freedom of Information Act Request or compulsory process were made to disclose it. There is nothing in the record to support petitioner’s assertion that the parties agreed to confidentiality. Petitioner has not proven by any evidence extrinsic to the NPA that it was intended to be confidential. The wording of the NPA, moreover, does not show it was intended by both parties to be confidential. The NPA on its face does not state anywhere that it is confidential. The word “confidential” does not appear in it. There is not a single term, provision, sentence or word in it where both parties affirmatively agree to keep it confidential. The term “confidential” essentially means that something is “meant to be kept secret.” Black’s law dictionary (8" ed. 2004). The NPA does not contain an expression of this intent, In fact, the parties to it expressly agree to the contrary: that the United States will disclose the NPA if a Freedom of Information Act Request or compulsory process is made to disclose it: EFTA00184091

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

The parties anticipate that this agreement will not be made part of any public record. If the United States receives a Freedom of Information Act request or any compulsory process commanding the disclosure of the agreement, it will provide notice to Epstein before making that disclosure. (NPA, paragraph 13(emphasis added.) The first sentence of the above quote does no more than state an expectation by both sides that they do not anticipate the document being made part of a public record, i.e., not filed in federal court. At most it states merely an intent that neither side will take affirmative steps to make place it in a public record. But that is not a provision that the document is confidential or that it will be kept confidential. In the same paragraph, the United States agrees to disclose the NPA if a Freedom of Information Act Request or compulsory process for the document is made. In fact, with all the hearings held in state court to the present on this issue, the United States, which was always noticed, has not once intervened in state court to request that the document remain sealed. A representative of the U.S. Attorney’s office has not even appeared at any of the hearings before the trial judge below on this issue. Moreover, at the plea colloquy, representatives of the United States were present and did not object to the EFTA00184092

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

terms of the agreement being discussed on the record or being placed in the state court file (see below). Also, the text of the NPA quote above (par. 13) shows that petitioner’s arguments based on the supremacy clause and the doctrine of secrecy of grand jury proceedings are wholly without merit. Can these arguments have any conceivable validity if the U.S. Attorney agreed to publicly disclose the NPA if there were a Freedom of Information Act Request or compulsory service of process? There should be no serious consideration given to petitioner’s contention that the U.S. Attorney intended to look to petitioner to protect the rights of the United States under the supremacy clause or to protect the sanctity of the doctrine of federal grand jury secrecy. This is but another smoke-screen. c. Petitioner himself and the state prosecutor already publicly disclosed the contents of the NPA (“the cat’s already out of the bag”). At the plea colloquy (A-8), with representatives of the U.S. Attorney present, petitioner’s attorney and the prosecutor disclosed on the record, in public, the essential terms of the NPA. After the trial judge cautioned 2 {t was noted on the record that representatives of the U.S. Attorney were present in court. A-8, page 39, lines 22-23. EFTA00184093

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

counsel that any sidebar conversation would be on the record, the following exchange occurred: MR. GOLDBERGER [petitioner’s counsel]: The reason why I asked to come sidebar is there is a nonprosecution agreement with the United States Attorney’s office that triggers as a result of the plea agreement. In other words, they have signed off and said they will not prosecute Mr. Epstein in the Southern District of Florida for any offense upon his successful [sic] taking of this plea today. That is a confidential document that the parties have agreed to. I wanted to tell the court. THE COURT: I understand, that would also be invalidated should he violate community control? MR. GOLDBERGER: Absolutely. That nonprosecution agreement — MS. [the state prosecutor]: They spell all that out. THE COURT: Mr. Epstein needs to come closer. Mr. Epstein, your attorney has told me that in addition to everything, we talked about another inducement, shall we say, to your taking this plea is that the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of the State of Florida, federal prosecutor, has agreed to a nonprosecution agreement with you, meaning that if you successfully complete probation and do everything you’re supposed to, they have, have agreed not to prosecute you federally, did you understand that? THE PETITIONER: Yes, ma’am. (A-8, pages 38-39)(emphasis added). We can see from the page-by-page review of the NPA (section 2a. above) that the other provisions of the NPA are incidental to the highlighted quotations. The substance of the NPA is the publicly disclosed provision that the U.S. Attorney will not prosecute petitioner for any federal offense 10 EFTA00184094

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

upon his pleading guilty to the two state crimes and agreeing to the sentence discussed in the plea colloquy. CONLUSION For the reasons stated above, it is respectfully requested that the petition for certiorari be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing has been served by mail on the parties listed below this \2 day of July, 2009. | HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is submitted in Times New Roman 14-point font and complies with the font requirement of Rule 9.100. ROTHSTEIN ENFELDT ADLER Attorneys for 401 East Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauder i 301 SERVICE LIST Kreusler-Walsh, Compiani & Vargas, P.A. 501 South Flagler Drive, Suite 503 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401-5913 11 EFTA00184095

--=PAGE_BREAK=--

Robert D. Critton Burman, Critton, Luttier & Coleman 515 North Flagler Drive, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Jack A. Goldberger Atterbury, Goldberger, & Weiss, P.A. 250 Australian Avenue South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 U.S. Attorney’s Office-Southern District 500 South Australian Avenue, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, Fl 33401 Honorable Jeffrey Colbath Palm Beach County Courthouse 205 North Dixie Highway Room 11F West Palm Beach. Fl 33401 EFTA00184096