Keyboard shortcuts

/
Search the files
j k
Move through a list of results
[ ]
Previous or next document
g g · G
Top or bottom of the page
Esc
Leave a search field or close this box
?
Show this box

Go to a page: g then

h
Index
t
Timeline
p
People
r
Redactions
x
Explore
w
News
l
Legislation
a
About

Correspondence · Sept. 17, 2008

Correspondence, 2008-09-17

From(USAFLS)“
To:
Cc: ‘
Subject: RE: State v. Jeffrey Epstein
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:25:14 +0000

Importance: Normal

Given the non-disclosure agreement, aren’t we left with telling the SAO that we have agreed to not disclose so it wouldn’t be proper for us to now agree that unsealing is appropriate. Ultimately, it’s the SAO’s call because they will get the Florida Public Records Act request and they were not a signatory to the agreement. We should also notify defense counsel so that they can take whatever actions they believe are appropriate. Wait till others have had a chance to weigh in on this issue.

From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2008 10:50 AM To: (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS)

Subject: FW: State v. Jeffrey Epstein

Will it never end? Barry Krisher sent the e-mail below to Rolando this morning. How would you like to handle this issue?

Assistant U.S. Attome

From: (USAFLS) Sent: W tuber 17, 2008 10:48 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: FW: State v. Jeffrey Epstein

From: Barry Krischer plammummilmompap Sent: Wednesda September 17, 2008 10:46 AM To: (USAFLS) Subject: FW: State v. Jeffrey Epstein

Please advise how you would like us to proceed. The agreement referred to is the Federal Non-Prosecution agreement sealed in the file by the judge at the time of the Epstein plea.

From: Lanna Belohlavek Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 4:21 PM To: Barry Krischer Subject: FW: State v. Jeffrey Epstein

From: Bryce Albu inennopemsemeneemine. Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2008 3:52 PM To: Lanna Belohlavek Cc: Martin Reeder Subject: State v. Jeffrey Epstein

Ms. Belohlavek,

We represent The Palm Beach Daily News. The newspaper recently discovered that a non-prosecution agreement (and an addendum thereto) was filed under seal pursuant to an agreed order entered in the above-referenced case. Because the records are sealed, we cannot assess the propriety of the decision to seal them or even whether the newspaper is interested in the information contained therein. I was hoping you would discuss with me the nature of the agreement and the basis for sealing it so that we can advise our client on whether it should pursue an order unsealing the agreement. Please call me at your earliest convenience.

Very truly yours,

C. Bryce Albu Reeder & Reeder PA

Correspondence, 2008-09-17

Emails and letters

DOJ Epstein Files, Data Set 8 · Sept. 17, 2008

| From | (USAFLS)" | | | |-------|---------------------------------------|--|--| | To: | | | | | | | | | | Cc: ' | | | | | | Subject: RE: State v. Jeffrey Epstein | | | | | Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:25:14 +0000 | | | Importance: Normal Given the non-disclosure agreement, aren't we left with telling the SAO that we have agreed to not disclose so it wouldn't be proper for us to now agree that unsealing is appropriate. Ultimately, it's the SAO's call because they will get the Florida Public Records Act request and they were not a signatory to the agreement. We should also notify defense counsel s…