Palm Beach Post notice of appeal and order denying release of Epstein grand jury records

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CASE NO. 50-2019-CA-014681-XXXX-MB¶

Division: AG¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC ) Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, )¶

) ) )

¶

v. )¶

) DAVE ARONBERG, as State Attorney of ) Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm i Beach County, Florida, )¶

Defendants. )¶

Plaintiff,¶

N TI E F¶

NOTICE IS GIVEN that Plaintiff/Ap of The Palm Beach Post (“Plaintiff”), this Court’s Order on the Grand J on February 29, 2024. The na t copy of the Order is attac orExhibit A. FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher the Fourth District Court of Appeal of Florida ony Regarding Jeffery Epstein (the “Order”), entered e Order to be reviewed is a final order. A true and correct¶

Go¶

+6s¶

Dated: March 14, 2024 Respectfully submitted,¶

GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.¶

Attorneys for CA Florida Holdings, LLC, Publisher of The Palm Beach Post¶

Stephen A. Mendelsohn, Esq. 5100 Town Center Circle, Suite 400 Boca Raton, Florida 33486 Telephone: (561) 955-7629 Facsimile: (561) 338-7099¶

By: /s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn¶

STEPHEN A. MENDELS Florida Bar No. 849324 mendelsohns®gtlaw. hasenh@gtlaw.com FLService®gtVin¶

-and-¶

By: /s/ Mi lel¶

MI LW RYGIEL Vice)¶

St., 6th Floor y, New York 12207 ephone: (518) 689-1400 Facsimile: (518) 689-1499 grygielm@gtlaw.corn¶

By: /s/ Nina D. Boyajian¶

NINA D. BOYAJIAN (Pm Hac Vice) 1840 Century Park East, Suite 1900 Los Angeles CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 586 ;7700 Facsimile: (310) 586 ;7800 boyajiann®gtlaw.com riveraal®gtlaw.corn¶

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE¶

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 14th day of March 2024, a copy of the foregoing has been electronically filed with the Florida E-File Portal for e-service on all parties of record herein.¶

/s/ Stephen A. Mendelsohn¶

STEPHEN A. MENDELSOHN¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

EXHIBIT A¶

NOT A CERTIFIED COPY¶

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA¶

CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST,¶

Plaintiff,¶

CASE NO.: S0-2019-CA-014681-AG¶

and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, CO ’ Beach County, V Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk DAVE A RONBERG, . as State Attorney of Palm S¶

Defendants.¶

c fic ORDER ON THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY (4 ⁱ hiG JEFFERY EPSTEIN¶

The Court was tasked with determinin c eililkACle itie release of the Grand Jury records would furtherjustice. For different reasons, the Co ath the same conclusion as the two predecessor judges who also denied the request. The r oft records will not furtherjustice as our law currently prescribes.¶

This is despite many atte ptsc1 9Iveralmonthstoforceitselftoreachanoppositeconclusion; however, after weighing all of th factors n re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, it is clear there is no nexus between those findings and furth nglustice. ThisCourt cannot weigh those factors in a way that “will furtherjustice.¶

These factors are:¶

• (i) the-identity the party seeking disclosure;

In this Sts the private entity that owns the Palm Beach Post —a large news media corporation. Thistle cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help furtherjustice. The press has a noble obligathr to inform the public, but that is not synonymous with furthering justice. The press has no greater access to grand jury proceedings that the public.¶

• (ii) whetherthe defendant to theGra nd Jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure;

There is no one that opposes the disclosure of those records. It is understandable that no one opposim the release of the records as they pertain to the horrific atrocity that is pedophilia. However, this fa ctum cannot be construed to further justice. It only indicates an eagerness for the release of the records, which is insufficient under our current law.¶

• (iii) why disclosure is being sought in the particular case;

This is sought to ‘further justice” but how this furthers justice is thread-bare, disjointed and poorly articulated. The argument presented is premised on the first amendment (freedom of the press) and an exception of furthering justice.¶

The Courts are not seeking to limit the freedom of the press, but the press is not entitlecUpxanygreater access than the public merely because they are the press. The Court does not t a further justice merely beca use the media seeks release, as opposed to any interested he release would potentially promote the advancement of other noble interests such as cresting o e transparency, but that is not the legal standards of our current law.¶

As) (iv) what specific information is being sought for d isclosu The Petitioner seeks the release of Grand Jury testimony, Thes, sitive information that is genera Ity kept secret and closed to the public. The Court weigpsths ctio/r against the relea se of the ma teria Is.¶

\/¶

• (v) how long ago the Grant:Wry proc s k place;

The proceedings are remote in time. T cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help further justice. If anything after reelevn e material the overwhelming majority of the substance has been previously reported by the rrie or made the subject of documentaries.¶

• Ik i
• (vi) the current sta s of the principals of the Gra ndlury proceedings and that of their families;

This is unknown to the urt as the Petitioners are not the principals. Perhaps if a child victim who testified had ed the petition, the Court’s analysis could be different as to portions of the proceedin or is weighed against releasing the records.¶

• (vii) the extent to which the desired material—either permissibly or impermissibly—has been reviously made public;

The Grand Jury testimony material has never been made public. A large amount of substance of the material or what occurred inside the Grand Jury room has been previously reported —even by the Post — without attribution.¶

The testimony was previously released to a law enforcement agency to assist in a law enforcement investigation — the results of which are unknown to the Court. The release to law enforcement to¶

conduct an investigation would clearly be to further justice, but that does not carryover to the instant request.¶

• (viii) whether witnesses to the Grand Jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and

The Court has no knowledge of the current status of the witnesses and cannot use this factor in any meaningful way to determine thereleasewould furtherjustice underour current law. On the contrary, there is the express manifestation of reluctance to testify to avoid embarrassment by a inor victim. Relea se in this circumsta nce would not further justice underour current law, a ndas ’ i a st known intent of witnesses, theCourt strongly weighs this factor aga inst the release of t teri s.¶

• (ix) the additional need for maintaining secrecy in the pa rticula rcese in question.

Gra ndlury proceedings a regenera Ily always kept secret an to the public. This is generally to protect jurors, witnesses,those a ccused, and the inte hy se. Secrecy a llows people to serve a sjurors and witnesses to testify without fearof outide lu Ce or retaliation. In some cases, it also ensures the protection of an innocent suspect’s reputsitio . Secrecy also makes it less likely that a defendant will abscond after learning they a r eliiinvestigated. Any concern for the reputation of Epstein is not a valid consideration in th’ e, b t the purpose of Grand Jury secrecy remains important.¶

The Court weighs this factor aga se of the materials, under ourcurrent law. Additionally the child victim witnesses have t re ed their desire to be named. This strongly indicates a desire to maintain secrecy. TheCou weighs is factor strongly against disclosure a ndfinds it will not further justice.¶

Concluding its and furtheran release of the als. lysis, the Court determines there is no nexus between the release of the records . It is a position so untenable it would requirea change in the statute to justify¶

The=GrwitS aware that the release of the records would accomplish many other positive objectives such as aVarricing the public’s interest in its criminal justice system and advancing a private corporate interest that promotes a healthy and robust news media. Those positive outcomes do not further justice.¶

Judicial restraint, that is avoid judicial overreach, has been important since foundation of our nation. Furthermore, the separation of powers is fundamental to our system of government. As has been said ‘We are judges, not kings.” Therefore, judges cannot not exercise our will over ourjudgement— no matter how much we may wish to do so. The Courts cannot usurp the roles of the legislator or governor and render moot pending or passed legislation because it would be easier or more popular to do so — no matter how much easier it may seem to do so. In our Republic, popularsentiment is the concern of the¶

political branches of government, not the courts. Under our current law, the legislature has allowed the release to “furtherjustice”—not to advance a public interest.¶

For those reasons the request is DENIED under our current law.¶

However, today the Governor of Florida signed CS/HB117 amending Florida Statute 905.27 effective July 1, 2024. This amendment significantly modifies the definition of “furthering justice” to expressly include furthering a public interest when the disclosureis requestedpursuant to paragraph 905.27(2)(c).¶

905.27(2)(c) now reads as follows:¶

When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant tosubsection (1) sponse to a request by the media or an interested person, regardless of whetherthat a criminal or civil case, it may be disclosed so long as the subject of the g?r II inquiry is deceased, the grand jury inquiry related to criminal or sexual activity bt u) t e subject of the grand jury investigation and a person who was a minorat the time I sth ged criminalor sexual activity, the testimonywas previously disclosed by a court er, d the state attorney is provided notice of the request. This paragraph does not lim co sability to limit the disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, red ruse in¶

ADDITIONAL FI N DI Nt T COURT¶

The Court finds that the request involvesam er public interest. The criminal prosecutions of the most infamous pedophile in American hist For almost 20 years, the story of how Je vulnerable has beenthe subject of muc criminal justice system. On or afterJu to how to weigh this as a factor. egan’In Palm Beach County —with much controversy. Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County’s most d has at times diminished the public perceptionof the the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as¶

Addingto the public inter stein is indeed infamousand is widely reported to have cavorted with politicians, billionaire even British Royalty. It is understandable that given those reports the public has a great cu iosity t what was widely reported by news agency as “special treatment” regarding his pros s matter is clearly the subject of public interest. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will e ai7Ajmotionforreconsiderationastohowtoweighthisasafactor.¶

Th fi s that this request is made by the media, specifically the Palm Beach Post The Palm Beach P ewspaper of record in our county, and has a long and rich history documenting our local communi any local resident still rely on the Post to obtain information on national, state and local events. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor.¶

The Court finds Epstein is also widely reported to have been deceased since August 10, 2019, under controversial and “newsworthy” circumstances, at Metropolitan Correctional Center in the state of New York. This adds to the public interest. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor.¶

Having reviewed the testimony, the Court also finds the testimony relates to sexual activity between Epstein and child victimsof sextrafficking. Again, it is widelyaccepted that Epstein is a notorious and serial pedophile. The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging from grossly unacceptable to criminal —all of it sexually deviant and disgusting. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor.¶

The Court also notes the testimony was previously disclosed to law enforcement agencies. Further, the State Attorney was properly noticed and withdrewany objections to release and even did his best to disclose the information in his office’s possession without delay via internet portal. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh all o his this as a factor.¶

The law is amended effectiveJuly 1, 2024 and the parties are given leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed on or afterluly 1, 2024.¶

IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, the petition to release the Grann cp ie dedings regarding Jeffery Epstein under the current law is DENIED.¶

DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach¶

502019C AO 1460 I X XXXIM 02/29/2024 Luis Delgado Circuit Judge¶