Subject: Epstein Secrecy ruling DE 330

Subject: Epstein Secrecy ruling DE 330

I am hoping a responsible lawyer (not the usual cadre of pedosadist apologists and enablers, please) can explain why this ruling is not being discussed, or answer my questions. Note that I have no law background or experience - these are just questions that occurred to me while reading the latest ruling. As usual, I'm not as interested in whether a point of law was adhered to as I am in whether the practical, common language interpretation of the ruling is correct.

"In May last year, prosecutors surrendered 541 pages of correspondence with Epstein’s lawyers leading up to the 2008 non-prosecution agreement as part of an ongoing process by the alleged victims seeking access to almost 15,000 pages of documentation.

But under an unpublicized ruling obtained by lawyers for Epstein, the details of the documents cannot be disclosed after it was argued that the negotiations over his plea deal were confidential and should not automatically enter the public domain.

Instead, lawyers for the women must redact any references to the correspondence in their public filings after a judge ruled that Mr Epstein had “shown good cause to prevent potential dissemination... to the press for the purposes of generating publicity”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/prince-andrew-sex-allegations-documents-about-princes-support-for-jeffrey-epstein-concealed-9959218.html

Background from DE330 Order granting 263 Motion for the Court to Protect from Disclosure Grand Jury Materials:

"This cause is before the Court on various discovery related matters. In response to Petitioners’ first requests for production, the respondent Government asserted various privileges in three privilege logs and submitted nearly 15,000 pages of documents for in camera inspection.
(DEs 212-1, 216-1, 329-1). Petitioners object to every privilege asserted. (DE 265).

Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein supports the Government’s assertion that certain grand jury materials should remain secret, and he moves to prevent disclosure of those materials. (DE 263). Petitioners filed a response. (DE 271).

Finally, the Government objects to the relevancy of several of Petitioners’ requests for production. (DE 260). Petitioners responded (DE 266) and filed a supporting supplement (DEs 267, 268)." (DE330 at 1 - Punctuation mine)

"The Government asserts that the documents submitted for in camera inspection are privileged for reasons such as the privacy rights of non-party victims" (DE 330 at 3)

Plaintiff counsel Edwards:
"The Court had ordered the Government to confer with petitioners’ counsel regarding disclosure of Jeffrey Epstein’s victims’ names. DE 330 at 24. The Government conferred with counsel, and that conferral confirmed, in general terms, that petitioners’ counsel already had
knowledge of the names of the persons the Government identified to be victims. And, indeed, the conferral indicated that petitioners’ counsel had knowledge of the names of many other victims as well." ---> "The Government, however, believes it needs additional direction from the Court before producing a formal list of victims’ names. The Government has advised the Court, without supporting legal argument or citation of authority, that disclosing the names to petitioners’ counsel would violate state and federal law. DE 332 at 4."

Excerpts from the latest Epstein CVRA ruling (336) by Judge Marra responding to the above:

"On July 6, 2015, this Court ordered the Government to provide Petitioners with certain documents indicating “which individuals the Government considered to be victims OR POTENTIAL VICTIMS (all caps emphasis mine) at the time it negotiated the non-prosecution agreement.” (DE 330 at 24)."

“To the extent any victim’s identity is disclosed to Petitioners, under no circumstance shall that victim’s identity be disseminated to anyone other than the Government and Petitioners, and under no circumstance shall that victim’s name appear in any court document unless filed under seal.”

At first glance this seems like a reasonable statement, and as Edwards and Cassel have withdrawn their request for further names, I'm assuming they believe this judgement reasonable as well. But I have questions.

Are POTENTIAL victims part of the group of "Settled Victims"?

The court ordered the Government to disclose the identities of both the victims and POTENTIAL victims at the time of the NPA:

"The Court finds that Petitioners have a compelling need to know which individuals the Government considered to be victims or potential victims at the time it negotiated the non-prosecution agreement. As indicated in the Table, the Government should confer with Petitioners regarding the names of the individuals identified in these documents. If Petitioners have not been previously provided with these names, then Petitioners should have production of the indicated documents."

The NPA item 7 states that Epstein was provided a list of "individuals whom it has identified as victims, as defined in 18 U.S.C 2255", (meaning victims of a civil/personal injury offense) and provide redress to them as a class.  The lawyer for these "Settled Victims", Attorney Josefsberg, responded to Judge Marras demand for disclosure, by stating:

"The Settled Victims do not consent to their identities being revealed to the Petitioners. Pursuant to their Settlement Agreements, the CVRA, and their Federal and State rights to privacy, they insist that they maintain their anonymity." They go on to elaborate that no information about their whereabouts be disseminated either. This is good, strong victim protection, and is appropriate.

Had Judge Marra required that documents containing references to the "Settled Victims" be redacted prior to their submission to the court, I would not have any objection at all to his order. But the group of people identified as a victim ("Settled Victims"), and a "potential victim" may be two different groups, and entire documents do not need to be filed under seal to insure confidentiality - they need only be redacted.

Did Judge Marra rule that no information will be released unsealed about EITHER victims or POTENTIAL victims at the the time of the NPA negotiation? His citing of Attorney Josefsbergs' (new attorney? because original attorney was Eisenberg) demand that the court keep secret the identity and whereabouts (not the testimony of nor evidence surrounding that testimony, btw) of the "Settled Victims" without separating that group from potential victims, has me confused. I am not sure potential victims can be included in the definition of "settled" victims, nor a statement about them inferred.

I am also confused about the scope of this ruling. The court told the government to discuss names with plaintiff's counsel. Given the success of Edwards and Cassel in obtaining information the government wants kept secret, & getting it released to the public, AG's desire to clarify that personally identifiable information about victims not be released to the public seems warranted. It also seems petty, disrespectful and provocative. Perhaps they wish to limit the ability of Edwards to contact witnesses they felt sure he was unaware of. I can think of no other practical reason for the governments' display of petulance.

Judge Marra ruled that all documents containing identity information about (potential?) victims be filed under seal. NOT that the documents contain redactions of information in order to protect victim identities and whereabouts. Marra's ruling did not specify that only the "Settled Witnesses" that responded to the court be kept secret. But that entire documents pertaining to ANY POTENTIAL victims only enter the court as sealed documents unavailable to the public.

Plaintiff counsel Edwards responded:
"Petitioners now believe that their list of victims includes all of those identified by the Government, and then some, making this debate unnecessary.
The petitioners do not concede that disclosure of the names would violate any (unspecified) federal or state law. In fact, it is essential that petitioners have the names of each identified victim for the purposes of completely and adequately prosecuting this action. And, should a future dispute or other circumstance making a missing name relevant to these proceeding arise, the petitioners reserve the right to reassert their request for the names to be formally provided by the Government.
But at this juncture, it appears that no further litigation on this point is required."

Judge Marra's Denial of Plaintiff's Motion to Seal (grand jury material, DE 263) may be effectively nullified by this latest ruling, in that entire documents mentioning potential witnesses are now required to be sealed submissions to the court. Was Marra's denial simply court theater to appease Cox Communications media members who intervened on behalf of the public, requesting that materials be kept in the public record? Reminder: The government felt it necessary to "ask the court" to confirm definitions in that order, leading to Judge Marra's new ruling. Also keep in mind that Villafana is quoted as saying there were 4 more potential victims, when Recarey's investigation lists many more. If it smells like whitewash, maybe it is.

Our friendly District Attorney's Office in Florida submitted 15,000 documents for Judge Marra to review in camera (meaning in his office and out of the public record). He managed this amazing feat, and wrote a ruling, in 13 days. The man must not have eaten, slept nor had any other court business occupying his time in order to read every single one of those documents in that short a time frame. Judge Marra did note that some entries in the privilege logs were not correctly classified, and stated they should be released to plaintiff's attorney ( I believe the correct count is 14). Let's hope they are enough to prove the shenanigans used by the AG and others to prevent CVRA notices and potential prosecutions.

One entry, below, from the Privilege Logs is an example of the reason the AG determined these documents should not be revealed (from the Table attached to DE 330):
"Contains factual information regarding the call history of Epstein (and associates) to victims, obtained during investigation into Epstein and associates. Contains no information bearing on Government’s obligation to crime victims."
Perhaps no bearing can be found directly on the government in this log, but it would have been helpful in determining undue pressure by Epstein and gang during the government's stated CVRA timeframe.

Not only do we not get to see actual document contents, we are also prevented from knowing the title of sealed motions/rulings in the docket:
11/08/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 118 [motion] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/08/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 119 [motion] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/08/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 120 [motion] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/08/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 121 [motion] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/08/2011)

11/09/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 122 [order] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

11/09/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 123 [order] restricted/sealed until further
notice. (dj) (Entered: 11/09/2011)

Attorney Edwards makes this point in DE 251 "DOE's RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN 'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER":
"In addition to blocking public access to information about this case, Epstein's proposed protective order is so ambiguously drafted that it would spawn all sorts of follow-on litigation.
Indeed, counsel for the victim s wonder whether that is Epstein's goal: to divert the time and attention of the victims and the Court) away from the merits of the case and into satellite litigation about compliance with the protective order"

I think that just about sums this entire case up. It's been dragging on in court since 07/07/2008, and the secrecy needs to stop. If there were no relevant information that would be in the public's best interests to know, there would not be so many people dead set against us seeing it.

~Opus