EFTA00183591 # IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 4D09-2554 ## JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Petitioner, STATE OF FLORIDA, PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., . AND B.B., Respondents. SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX TO PALM BEACH NEWSPAPERS, INC., d/b/a THE PALM BEACH POST'S RESPONSE TO EMERGENCY PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI Deanna K. Shullman THOMAS, LOCICERO & BRALOW PL James B. Lake 101 N.E. 3^{rd} Avenue, Suite 1500 Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301 EFTA00183592 ## Document | Transcript of June 10, 2009 hearing | 1 | | :--- | :--- | | Administrative Order No. 2.303-9/08 | 2 | | Of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit | 3 | | Administrative Order no. 2.032-10/06 | 4 | | Of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit | 5 | | John Doe. Museum of Science and History of Jacksonville, Case No. 92-32567, 1994 WL 741009 (Fla. 7th Jud. Cir. June 8, 1994) | 6 | | Government’s Response to Victim’s Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 7 | | Declaration of In Support of United State’s Response to Victim’s Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Crime Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 | 8 | | Defendants Jeffrey Epstein and Motion for Stay | 9 | 2 EFTA00183593 EFTA00183594 $$09-22784$$ 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIV¹ CASE NOs.: 2006-CF9454 AXX and 2008-CF9381 AXX STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEFFREY J. COLBATH JUNE 10, 2009 11:08 A.M. - 11:25 A.M. PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Reported by Louanne Rawls Notary Public, State of Florida West Palm Beach Office #100578 EFTA00183595 June 10, 2009 Proceedings APPEARANCES: On behalf of the Defendant JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE Atterbury, Goldberger, et al. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On behalf of the Defendant ROBERT CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE Burman, Critton, et al. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Ste. 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4349 On behalf of Third Party WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 On behalf of Third Party, The Post DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE Thomas, LoCiero & Bralow, PL 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1181 EFTA00183596 June 10, 2009 Proceedings ## P R O C E E D I N G S BE IT REMEMBERED that the following proceedings were had and testimony adduced before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida beginning at the hour of 11:08 a.m. on June 10, 2009, with appearances as herein noted to-wit: THE COURT: State vs. Epstein. Let me have for the record, announce everybody's appearance. MR. BERGER: Your Honor, William J. Berger and Bradley Edwards for non-party. MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, Deanna Shullman of Thomas, LoCiero & Bralow for non-party The Palm Beach Post. THE COURT: Let me slow down a little bit. On behalf of The Post is? MS. SHULLMAN: Deanna Shullman. THE COURT: S-H-U-L -- MS. SHULLMAN: S-H-U-L-L-M-A-N. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman, good morning. Mr. Berger, good morning. And Mr. Berger, your client is E -- MR. BERGER: Yes. THE COURT: Anybody else here? MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of . as well, Judge. Thanks. EFTA00183597 Proceedings June 10, 2009 THE COURT: Last name is spelled? MR. EDWARDS: Edwards. E-D-W-A-R-D-S. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDBERGER: For the other side, Your Honor, Jack Goldberger along with Robert Critton on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. 4 THE COURT: It is the Post's and Bain's Motion to Intervene for the purpose of unsealing records? MR. BERGER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Here's what I think I know, and I tell you this so that you can fill in the gaps of what you know that I don't know and suggest what you think I ought to do. It appears to me that there was some agreement -- an agreement that was sealed and then an addendum or amendment to the agreement that was sealed as to documents in the Court's files under seal and it appears as though the punitive interveners want to unseal those and take a peak at them. I don't see where any of the proper procedures to seal the documents was ever followed to begin with. I don't know but it's not jumping out at me when I reviewed the file. So, I'm thinking that it might be appropriate and the burden might be on the moving party, being the State and Mr. Epstein, to give them the opportunity to jump through the hur -- hoops to seal the documents if they are entitled to have them sealed, then EFTA00183598 June 10, 2009 Proceedings I'll grant that request. If they're not entitled to seal then I'll order it as documents unsealed. But that's kind of procedurally where I think the case is. I will allow Mr. Berger and Ms. Shullman to argue if they wish to, otherwise I will go over to Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Critton to perhaps talk about what they think about my suggestion. Mr. Berger? MR. BERGER: I -- I'd like to hear what they say. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger? MS. SHULLMAN: Agreed. MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor -- THE COURT: I mean, it looks like they just handed up an Agreed Order to sign. MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, if the Court -- I know the Court is trying to short circuit here and the idea in theory is not horrible, it's not terrible, it's actually not so bad. But let me alert the Court to a couple of issues. First of all, this is not something that came up ahead of time where we were moving to close a hearing or file documents under seal and the Rules of Judicial Administration makes an important distinction between things that are done in advance and things that come up during a hearing and the fact that maybe it goes to the Rule -- talk about situations that arise during the course EFTA00183599 June 10, 2009 Proceedings of a hearing, that the Rules would not apply to that. Secondly, 's Motion to Intervene is brought under a Rule that does not apply because she brought it under a Rule that applies to non-criminal cases. Having said that I know the Court's desire to get to the issues here and I just need to alert the Court to one other matter because I think it's really important. The Plaintiff's, , has this agreement already. They have this agreement. Counsel will tell you they have this agreement. There have been two hearings in front of Judge Marra who has the Federal cases here. They moved to unseal the non-prosecution agreement in front of Judge Marra. He entered an initial Order, a very, very well reasoned Order which I have a copy for the Court. THE COURT: Oh, thanks. MR. GOLDBERGER: He entered a very, very well reasoned Order weighing the interest of the Plaintiffs to have access to the non-prosecution agreement with the confidentiality that the parties intended to be part of this agreement. And what he did, he said they can have this agreement. They can review it all they want. If they want to review it with somebody else, they need to give them a copy of this Order that it is not to be disclosed to anyone else. Subsequent to that -- so that's the Rule that's in place right now. Subsequent to that the EFTA00183600 June 10, 2009 Proceedings Plaintiffs went back and said we want to disseminate this Order. We want to disseminate this agreement to other parties and Judge Marra entered a second Order denying that request and said, no. My Order is in place but if you have some compelling reason why you want this agreement to be disseminated to others, file a motion and come back to me. THE COURT: This is as a result of some civil litigation pending in the Federal Courthouse? MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes. THE COURT: As opposed to any criminal prosecution going on? MR. GOLDBERGER: It is civil proceedings that are going on in Federal Court. But in the interest of comedy, Your Honor, the Court has ruled on the confidentiality agreement and has put a well reasoned procedure into place. If the parties want that agreement unsealed where they need to go is go back to Federal Court and Judge Marra invited them to do so. THE COURT: That may be as it pertains to , but what about The Post? MR. GOLDBERGER: I think -- and I think I know where the Court is going on this. If The Post's position is the public has right to acc -- access to this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct EFTA00183601 June 10, 2009 Proceedings a hearing and do the 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 have a hearing in front of the Court. THE COURT: Well, let's do -- I'm thinking out loud. I'm not ruling. I will give you all a chance to argue further, but this is what I'm thinking I will do, grant the Motion to Intervene. It gives standing to [ ]. It gives standing to The Post to contest the fact that these were sealed. And then I will shift the burden back on the State and Defendant, Mr. Epstein, to petition the Court to seal these documents. Until such time that I rule on that I will leave them under seal because they might have been correctly sealed but the procedure wasn't followed. There's got to be notice. You've got to comply with the Administrative Order 2.303. You've got to comply with the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d). I think even though that's a civil -- it addresses a civil matter this is, you know, in the nature of a civil procedure. So, I'll do that. And thank you for these Orders. So, where do we go from here? I'm thinking out loud, not ruling. Mr. Berger? MR. BERGER: Judge, with all due respect I completely disagree with counsel's characterization of EFTA00183602 June 10, 2009 ## Proceedings those two Orders. I don't know if he handed up both to you? THE COURT: I do. MR. BERGER: They simply do not say what he tells you they say. THE COURT: I'll read them -- MR. BERGER: All right. THE COURT: -- and I'll allow you to make that argument -- MR. BERGER: And -- and -- THE COURT: -- at the time of the Renewed Motion to Seal. MR. BERGER: All right. And, also, I don't think the Court -- I think the Court needs to deal with this immediately, expeditiously. This is a matter that the Supreme Court has placed incredible scrutiny over. And the Rule that we are traveling under -- we're not only traveling under a Rule of Judicial Administration that applies to criminal and civil cases, we're applying to an Administrative Order of this Court that was in place when the sealing was done and that superseded the sealing. THE COURT: I -- MR. BERGER: I'm just saying, I respectfully request that the Court not delay this one minute. THE COURT: You've got the agreements. EFTA00183603 Proceedings June 10, 2009 10 MR. BERGER: Pardon me? THE COURT: You've got the agreements anyway. You've got what's under seal. MR. BERGER: Judge, we cannot do anything with them. THE COURT: Take that up with Judge Marra. MR. BERGER: No, sir. That is not what the Order says. May I quote Judge Marra. "If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case the relief should be sought in that case." In other words, the civil cases which are in front of Judge Hafele is one forum that Judge Marra said go to it. Judge Marra did not say that this Court does not have jurisdiction to unseal its own sealed records or to vacate its own Order sealing. And any characterization is -- is false. THE COURT: I’ll take a look at it and I'll draw from it what it says -- what I think it says. I appreciate your zealous representation of your client. Please, it appears as though you're yelling at me. MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? MR. BERGER: Judge, this happens to be a very serious matter and every day of delay delays our discovery. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, if I may be heard on the EFTA00183604 June 10, 2009 Proceedings 11 issue as well. As a representative of the public's right of access -have to make a motion. THE COURT: Well, what house is on fire? I mean, what is the -- I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notice pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what prejudice is there? What house is burning down if I say okay. State and defense, go ahead and expeditiously move through the MS. SHULLMAN: -- here essentially, I would agree with Mr. Berger that we need an immediate hearing on this issue. That's what we're here to do today. I think I heard Your Honor say that he's not clear that the procedures were applied. My review of the record does not reveal that the procedures were complied with. My review is similar to Your Honor's. It looks like sort of everybody approached the bench and Judge Pucillo said let's take it under seal. If Mr. Epstein's counsel is not prepared to go forward today and meet his burden, then I would ask that this Court set a hearing as soon as practical because the right solution here should be to unseal the records and then, you know -have to make a motion. THE COURT: Well, what house is on fire? I mean, what is the -- I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notice pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what prejudice is there? What house is burning down if I say okay. State and defense, go ahead and expeditiously move through the THE COURT: I've gotcha. EFTA00183605 Proceedings June 10, 2009 process and let's get this back on my docket as quickly as possible and give them until Friday to file their notice and ten days after that we have an evidentiary hearing. I go through the process then. What bad thing is going to happen by waiting these extra twelve to fifteen days? MS. SHULLMAN: The bad thing that's going to happen, Your Honor, is that the status quo in Florida is that the constitutional right of access is openness. THE COURT: Right. MS. SHULLMAN: You know, certainly if Your Honor is inclined to postpone this hearing I would ask that it be done expeditiously as you suggest. THE COURT: Yes. MS. SHULLMAN: You know, Friday and then ten days thereafter, it just delays access for another two weeks and it infringes on our rights. THE COURT: I agree. Mr. Berger, I will let you answer that same question. MR. BERGER: I don't think -- THE COURT: Anything specific rather than -- MR. BERGER: Yes. THE COURT: You know, anything closed that the people are allowed to look at is a transgression and any transgression is bad, but anything unique beyond that? MR. BERGER: Your Honor -- Your Honor, I do not EFTA00183606 June 10, 2009 Proceedings 13 believe that this Court has the jurisdiction to revisit the propriety of the sealing of these records and give the Defendant or the State, for that matter, a second bite at the apple. If the records are sealed improperly, which the Court has said on its face that appears to have occurred, I do not believe that this Court has jurisdiction to allow them a second bite at the apple to go through with the notice requirements. They should have done that in front of Judge Pucillo a year ago and they did not do it. The Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 simply does not give this Court the right to reactivate the procedure that you outlined. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Goldberger or Mr. Critton? MR. GOLDBERGER: Just note, Your Honor, as far as the timing of this and we want to do this expeditiously, of course, this sealing occurred not last week, not two weeks ago, not four months ago but eleven and one half months ago. The Post reported this last July. So, I understand the right for the pubic to have access and we want to do this as quickly as possible but there is no fire here. There is no house burning. THE COURT: Then I'll go ahead and enter an Order as EFTA00183607 June 10, 2009 Proceedings I've indicated, that is that I'll grant the Intervener's Motion to Intervene. You have standing. I will order that the State and/or the defense by noon Friday file a Notice of -- comply with the Administrative Order 2.303 and the Judicial Rule -- the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, paragraph d, that outlines the procedures to seal files in these types of cases and then we'll get a hearing scheduled for argument on whether or not they will be sealed. Until that time they will remain sealed because Judge Pucillo signed off on the Order and I'm not inclined to disturb that until I find more about the merits of the movant's position. 14 MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Anybody want to reduce any of that mess to a written Order? MR. EDWARDS: I’d like to Your Honor. I’d like to know if you’re going to give us a hearing date today. THE COURT: I’ll deal with that. Yeah. Let me give you some time. How much time do you think it's going to take? I don't think I'm going to have any surprises. How much time do you think we need? A half hour? MR. EDWARDS: Not more. I'd say an hour at the longest. THE COURT: I'm not taking evidence or anything like that. In the meantime, do you agree it would be prudent EFTA00183608 Proceedings June 10, 2009 THE COURT: Right. Whatever is under seal. Whatever it is that's under seal I'll take a look at it so that I can at least have a feel for apparently what you all know and I don't. 15 THE COURT: Okay. I'll go ahead and read those two sealed documents and I'll see you back here, assuming that Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Critton get that done between now and Friday. Ten days from this Friday is the 22nd. How about we do this on the 25th at 1:30? MR. GOLDBERGER: One moment, Your Honor. That's fine with me. EFTA00183609 June 10, 2009 Proceedings ## C E R T I F I C A T E 16 EFTA00183610 Proceedings June 10, 2009
Aalertarises4:9 5:4,7,8character...
acc5:18 6:65:18 6:610:88:23,24 9:48:25 10:13
7:24allowallowarticulate9:7,10,13circuit
access5:3 9:8 13:65:3 9:8 13:615:29:23 10:1,41:1,1 5:16
6:18 7:24allowedallowedassuming10:6,21civil
11:2 12:812:2312:2315:1211:5 12:177:8,13 8:19
12:15 13:22amendmentamendmentAtterbury12:19,21,258:19,20
addendum4:154:152:313:14 15:189:19 10:8,9
4:14and/orand/orAustralianbeyondclear
addresses14:314:32:312:2411:7
8:19announceannounceauthorizedbitclient
adduced3:93:916:43:153:21 10:17
3:4answeranswerAvebiteclose
Adler12:1812:182:313:3,75:20
2:12AnybodyAnybodyAvenueBlvdclosed
Administr...3:23 14:143:23 14:142:192:1312:22
5:22 8:18anywayanywayAXXBradClosure
9:18 11:2210:210:21:4,43:248:4
13:10 14:5apparentlyapparentlya.mBradleyColbath
Administr...15:815:81:19,19 3:62:11 3:111:17 3:4
8:17 9:20appearanceappearanceBralowcome
11:22 14:43:93:9B2:18 3:135:23 7:6
advanceappearancesappearancesbackbroughtcomedy
5:232:1 3:72:1 3:77:1,6,186:2,37:14
agoappearsappears8:11 12:1burdencompelling
13:9,20,204:13,164:13,1615:124:22 8:117:5 8:2
13:2110:18 13:510:18 13:5bad11:13complete
agreeappleapple5:18 12:4,6Burman16:6
11:4 12:1713:4,713:4,712:242:6completely
14:25appliedappliedbalancingburning8:25
Agreed11:811:88:111:24 13:24complied
5:10,14appliesappliesBeach11:9
agreement6:4 9:196:4 9:191:2,20,21,25Ccomply
4:13,14,15applyapply2:4,7 3:5,5C:1 16:1,18:16,17 14:4
6:8,8,9,126:1,36:1,33:13caseCONCLUDED
6:18,20,21applyingapplyingbeginning1:4 5:3 10:815:21
7:2,5,16,179:199:19behalf10:9conduct
15:5appreciate10:162:2,5,9,16cases7:25
agreements10:16approached3:15,24 4:56:4,11 9:19confident...
9:25 10:211:1011:10believe10:9 14:76:19 7:15
aheadappropriate4:2213:1,6certainlyconstitut...
5:20 11:254:224:22bench12:1012:8
13:25 15:11argueargue11:11certifycontent
al5:4 8:75:4 8:7Berger16:415:1
2:3,6argumentargument2:10 3:10,10chancecontest
ALAN9:9 14:89:9 14:83:20,21,228:78:10
2:2copy
EFTA00183611 June 10, 2009 Proceedings
6:14,23D1:3evidencefind
correctlyddocket14:2414:11
8:153:1 14:612:1evidentiaryfine
counseldatedocuments8:3 12:315:16
6:8 11:1214:174:15,19,25expeditio...fire
counsel'sDated5:2,21 8:139:15 11:2511:19 13:24
8:2516:815:1212:12 13:18First
Countydaydrawextra5:19
1:2,20 3:510:22 16:810:1512:5FL
coupledaysDriveE-D-W-A-R...2:4,7,14,21
5:1811:21 12:3,52:74:2Flagler
course12:14 15:14due2:7
5:25 13:19deal8:242:9 3:11,22Florida
Court9:14 14:183:24 4:71:2,6,21,24
1:1 3:8,15DeannaE6:2,7 7:203:5 12:7
3:18,20,232:17 3:12,172:13 3:1,18:9followed
4:1,3,7,10Defendant3:21 16:1,14:19 8:15
5:9,11,131:13 2:2,5EdwardsFfollowing
5:15,16,188:12 13:32:11 3:11,2416:13:3
6:6,14,15defense3:24 4:2,2faceforegoing
7:8,11,1411:25 14:314:16,2213:516:5
7:15,18,2015:4,1015:5factFort
7:23,25 8:58:12 13:3eleven5:24 8:102:14,21
8:6,12 9:39:24 10:2213:20falseforum
9:6,8,11,14delaysenter10:1410:10
9:14,16,2010:22 12:1513:25farforward
9:22,24,25denyingentered13:1711:12
10:2,5,117:36:12,16 7:3Federalfour
10:15,20,24desireentitled6:10 7:9,1413:20
11:3,14,176:54:25 5:17:18Friday
11:19 12:9digitallyEpsteinfeel12:2,14 14:3
12:13,17,2016:51:11 3:8 4:615:815:14,14
12:22 13:1disagree4:23 8:12 fifteenfront
13:5,6,118:25Epstein's12:56:10,12 8:5
13:13,15,25disclosed11:12FIFTEENTH10:10 13:8
14:14,18,246:23ESQUARE1:1further
15:6,11,19discovery2:2,6,10,11file8:8 13:15
Courthouse10:232:174:21 5:21
1:20 3:5 7:9disseminateessentially7:6 12:2G
Court's7:1,211:414:3G
4:16 6:5disseminatedetfiles3:1
criminal7:62:3,64:16 14:7gaps
1:3 7:11distinctioneverybodyfiling4:11
9:195:2211:108:4give
Crittondisturbeverybody'sfill4:23 6:22
2:6,6 4:514:113:94:118:7 11:21
5:5 13:16DIYISION12:2 13:2
15:13
EFTA00183612 June 10, 2009 Proceedings 13:10 14:17 14:18 gives 8:9,10 go 5:5 7:18,18 8:22 10:11 11:12, 23, 25 12:4 13:7 13:25 15:11 goes 5:24 going 7:12, 14, 23 7:12, 14, 25 8:3 12:4, 6 14:17, 19, 20 Goldberger 2:2,3 4:4,5 5:15 6:16 5:5,11,12 7:10, 13, 22 13:15, 17 14:13 15:4 15:10, 13, 16 15:20 good gotcha 3:20,21 11:17 government grant 5:1 8:8 14:1 8:4 15:19 Hafele 10:10 half 13:20 14:21 5:13 9:1 12:5, 6` happen happens 10:21 hear hearing 5:8 10:25 11:6 5:20, 24 6:1 11:5, 14 12:3, 11 14:7, 17 6:10 HELD hearings 15:3 5:12 7:15 Honor 1:16 3:10 12 4:4 10:19,25 11:7 12:7 12:10, 25, 25 13:17 14:16 Honor's 1:17 3:4 15:16 11:10 4:24 hoops horrible hour 3:6 14:21,22 house 11:19,24 13:24 hur 4:24 improperly idea 5:22 6:7 5:16 immediate immediately 9:15 inclined 11:5 indicated 12:11 14:10 important incredible 13:4 infringes 9:16 12:16 14:1 initial intended 6:12 interest 6:19 6:17 7:14 8:2 Intervene 4:8 6:2 8:9 14:2 interveners Intervener's 4:17 invited 7:19 issue 11:1, 6 issues 5:19 6:5 Jack 1:17 2:10,11 3:10 1:11, 17 3:4 4:6 2:2 4:5 Jeffrey JR 2:6 Judge 3:25 6:10,12 7:3,18 8:24 10:4,5,7,10 10:10, 11, 21 14:10 15:20 11:11 13:9 Judicial 1:1 5:21 8:18 9:18 11:22 13:10 14:5,5 July 13:21 jump 4:24 jumping 4:20 June 1:18 3:6 16:8 jurisdiction 10:12 13:1,6 kind know 4:10, 11, 12 4:20 5:15 6:5 7:22 8:20 9:1 11:16 12:10 12:14, 22 14:17 15:2 15:8 3 Las 2:13 Lauderdale 2:14, 21 leave 8:14 let's 8:6 11:11 12:1 litigation 7:9 little 3:15 LoCiero 2:18 3:13 longest 14:23 look looks 8:1 10:15 12:23 15:1 15:7 loud 5:13 11:10 Louanne 8:6,22 Marra 1:23 16:4,11 matter 6:10,12 7:3 7:19 10:5,7 10:10,11 6:6 8:19 9:15 10:22 13:3 5:13 11:19 mean 11:13 meet merits 14:11 mess 14:14 minute moment 15:16 months 13:20, 21 morning 3:20, 21 motion 4:7 6:2 7:6 8:9 9:11 11:18 14:2 movant's 14:12 move EFTA00183613 June 10, 2009 Proceedings
11:25 moved6:11 moving4:22 5:20objection8:4 15:10occurred13:5,19Office1:25Oh6:15okay4:3 11:2413:13 15:11Olas2:13openness12:8opportunity4:24opposed7:11order5:2,14 6:136:13,17,237:2,3,48:17 9:2010:6,1311:22 13:2514:2,4,1014:15Orders8:21 9:1ought4:12outlined13:12outlines14:610:1part6:19parties6:19 7:3,17party2:9,16 4:23peak4:18pending7:9people12:23pertains7:20petition8:12PL2:18place6:25 7:4,177:25 9:20placed9:16Plaintiff1:8Plaintiffs6:17 7:1Plaintiff's6:7Please10:17position7:23 14:12possible12:2 13:23Post2:16 3:14,167:21 8:1013:21postpone12:11Post's4:7 7:23practical11:14prejudice11:23prepared11:12procedurally5:3procedure7:16,25 8:158:20 13:11procedures4:19 11:7,914:6proceedings1:16 3:37:13 15:2116:5process11:23 12:1,4proper4:18propriety13:2prosecution7:11prudent14:25pubic13:22public1:24 7:24public's11:1Pucillo11:11 13:914:10punitive4:17purpose4:8pursuant11:21put7:16Qquestion12:18quickly12:1 13:2quo12:7quote10:7RR R3:1 16:1Rawis1:23 16:4,11reactivate13:11read9:6 15:11really6:7reason7:5reasoned6:13,17 7:16record3:9 11:816:6records4:8 10:1211:15 13:2113:4reduce14:14relief10:8remain14:9REMEMBERED3:3Renewed9:11report16:5reported1:23 13:21represent...10:17represent...11:1request
N2:7 3:1name4:1nature8:20need6:6,22 7:1810:8 11:514:21needs9:14non-criminal6:4non-party3:11,13non-prose...6:11,18 15:5noon14:3NOs1:4Notary1:24note13:17noted3:7notes16:6notice8:16 11:2112:2 13:814:3N.E2:19OO O O3:1objection8:4 15:10occurred13:5,19Office1:25Oh6:15okay4:3 11:2413:13 15:11Olas2:13openness12:8opportunity4:24opposed7:11order5:2,14 6:136:13,17,237:2,3,48:17 9:2010:6,1311:22 13:2514:2,4,1014:15Orders8:21 9:1ought4:12outlined13:12outlines14:610:1part6:19parties6:19 7:3,17party2:9,16 4:23peak4:18pending7:9people12:23pertains7:20petition8:12PL2:18place6:25 7:4,177:25 9:20placed9:16Plaintiff1:8Plaintiffs6:17 7:1Plaintiff's6:7Please10:17position7:23 14:12possible12:2 13:23Post2:16 3:14,167:21 8:1013:21postpone12:11Post's4:7 7:23practical11:14prejudice11:23prepared11:12procedurally5:3procedure7:16,25 8:158:20 13:11procedures4:19 11:7,914:6proceedings1:16 3:37:13 15:2116:5process11:23 12:1,4proper4:18propriety13:2prosecution7:11prudent14:25pubic13:22public1:24 7:24public's11:1Pucillo11:11 13:914:10punitive4:17purpose4:8pursuant11:21put7:16Qquestion12:18quickly12:1 13:2quo12:7quote10:7R R3:1 16:1Rawis1:23 16:4,11reactive13:11read9:6 15:11really6:7reason7:5reasoned6:13,17 7:16record3:9 11:816:6records4:8 10:1211:15 13:2113:4reduce14:14relief10:8remain14:9REMEMBERED3:3Renewed9:11report16:5reported1:23 13:21represent...10:17represent...11:1request
EFTA00183614 June 10, 2009 Proceedings
5:1 7:4 8:411:223:17,17,19Ste14:13 15:18
9:23ruling3:20 5:4,92:715:19,20
require8:7,225:10 10:19Subsequentthanks
8:3S10:20,24,256:24,253:25 6:15
requirementss11:4,18suggesttheory
13:83:1 4:7 6:212:6,10,144:12 12:125:17
respectsayingsidesuggestionthing
8:249:234:45:612:4,6
respectfullysayssignSuitethings
9:2310:7,16,165:142:3,13,205:23,23 15:2
resultscheduledsignedsupervisedthink
7:814:814:109:214:10,12 5:3
revealscrutinysimilarSupreme5:6 6:7
11:89:1611:99:167:22,22
reviewsealsimplysurprises8:18 9:13
6:21,22 11:84:16,19,249:4 13:1014:209:14 10:16
11:95:1,21 8:13sirS-H-U-L11:6,20
reviewed8:14 9:124:9 10:63:1812:19 14:19
4:2110:3 11:11situationsS-H-U-L-L...14:20,21
revisit14:6 15:6,75:253:19thinking
13:1sealedslowT4:21 8:6,8
right4:14,15,253:15T8:22
6:25 7:248:11,15solutionT4:13rd
9:7,13 11:110:12 13:411:1516:1,12:9,16
11:3,1414:9,9somebodytakeThomas
12:8,915:126:224:17 10:5,152:18 3:13
13:11,22sealingsoon11:11 14:20time
15:6,199:21,2111:1415:1,75:20 8:13
rights10:13 13:2sorttalk9:11 14:9,
12:1613:1911:105:6,2514:19,19,21
Robertsecondsoughttangibletiming
2:6 4:57:3 13:3,710:810:713:18
RosenfeldtSecondlySouthtelltoday
2:126:22:34:10 6:911:6,13
Rothsteinseespecifictells14:17
2:124:18 15:1,1210:7 12:209:4today's
ruleseriousspelledten15:3
5:25 6:3,410:224:111:21 12:3to-wit
6:24 8:13setstanding12:14 15:143:7
8:18 9:1711:148:9,10 14:2terribletranscript
9:18 11:21shiftState5:1716:6
13:10 14:58:111:6,24 3:8testtransgres...
14:5short4:23 8:128:112:23,24
ruled5:1611:24 13:3testimonytraveling
7:15Shullman14:33:49:17,18
Rules2:17 3:12,12statusthanktrue
5:21 6:112:78:21 13:1416:6
EFTA00183615 June 10, 2009 Proceedings
trying6:171:195
5:16went1400515
twelve7:12:32:7
12:5West1500
two1:21, 25 2:42:20
6:10 9:12:7 3:51650
12:15 13:19we'll2:13
15:1114:7
typeswe're2
14:79:17, 19 11:62.303
UWilliam8:17 14:4
ultimately2:10 3:102.420
7:25wish13:10 14:6
understand5:42.420(d)
13:22words8:18
unique10:92006-CF9454
12:24written1:4
unseal14:152008-CF9381
4:17 6:11Y1:4
10:12 11:15Yeah2009
unsealed12:13 14:181:18 3:6
5:2 7:17year16:8
unsealing13:922nd
4:8yelling15:14
10:1825th
vacateZ15:15
10:13zealous250
vs10:172:3
1:9 3:8#3
W#1005783rd
waiting1:25 16:112:19
12:5133301-1181
want1:302:21
4:17 6:21,2215:1533394
7:1,2,5,17102:14
13:18,231:18 3:633401
14:1410th2:4
wasn't16:833401-4349
8:151012:7
week2:194
13:1911:08400
weeks1:19 3:62:7
12:15 13:2011:25401
weighing2:13
EFTA00183616 # IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF FLORIDA, Plaintiff, vs. JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Defendant. PROCEEDINGS HELD BEFORE THE HONORABLE JEFFREY J. COLBATH JUNE 10, 2009 11:08 A.M. - 11:25 A. M. PALM BEACH COUNTY COURTHOUSE WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA Reported by Louanne Rawls Notary Public, State of Florida West Palm Beach Office #100578 EFTA00183617 Proceedings June 10, 2009 On behalf of the Defendant JACK ALAN GOLDBERGER, ESQUIRE Atterbury, Goldberger, et al. 250 Australian Ave. South, Suite 1400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 On behalf of the Defendant ROBERT CRITTON, JR., ESQUIRE Burman, Critton, et al. 515 N. Flagler Drive, Ste. 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401-4349 On behalf of Third Party J. WILLIAM J. BERGER, ESQUIRE BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQUIRE Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler 401 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1650 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394 On behalf of Third Party, The Post DEANNA SHULLMAN, ESQUIRE Thomas, LoCiero & Bralow, PL 101 N.E. 3rd Avenue Suite 1500 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-1181 EFTA00183618 June 10, 2009 Proceedings ## PROCEEDINGS BE IT REMEMBERED that the following proceedings were had and testimony adduced before the Honorable Jeffrey Colbath, at the Palm Beach County Courthouse, West Palm Beach, Florida beginning at the hour of 11:08 a.m. on June 10, 2009, with appearances as herein noted to-wit: THE COURT: State vs. Epstein. Let me have for the record, announce everybody's appearance. MR. BERGER: Your Honor, William J. Berger and Bradley Edwards for nonparty MS. SHULMAN: Your Honor, Deanna Shullman of Thomas, LoCiero & Bralow for non-party The Palm Beach Post. THE COURT: Let me slow down a little bit. On behalf of The Post is? MS. SHULIMAN: Deanna Shullman. THE COURT: S-H-U- MS. SHULLMAN: S-H-U-L-L-M-A-N. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman, good morning. Mr. Berger, good morning. And Mr. Berger, your client is E - MR. BERGER: , yes. THE COURT: Anybody else here? MR. EDWARDS: Brad Edwards on behalf of . as well, Judge. Thanks. EFTA00183619 Proceedings June 10, 2009 THE COURT: Last name is spelled? MR. EDWARDS: Edwards. E-D-W-A-R-D-S. THE COURT: Okay. MR. GOLDBERGER: For the other side, Your Honor, Jack Goldberger along with Robert Critton on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein. THE COURT: It is the Post's and M.'s Motion to Intervene for the purpose of unsealing records? MR. BERGER: Yes, sir. THE COURT: Here's what I think I know, and I tell you this so that you can fill in the gaps of what you know that I don't know and suggest what you think I ought to do. It appears to me that there was some agreement -- an agreement that was sealed and then an addendum or amendment to the agreement that was sealed as to documents in the Court's files under seal and it appears as though the punitive interveners want to unseal those and take a peak at them. I don't see where any of the proper procedures to seal the documents was ever followed to begin with. I don't know but it's not jumping out at me when I reviewed the file. So, I'm thinking that it might be appropriate and the burden might be on the moving party, being the State and Mr. Epstein, to give them the opportunity to jump through the hur--hoops to seal the documents if they are entitled to have them sealed, then EFTA00183620 Proceedings June 10, 2009 I'll grant that request. If they're not entitled to seal then I'll order it as documents unsealed. But that's kind of procedurally where I think the case is. I will allow Mr. Berger and Ms. Shullman to argue if they wish to, otherwise I will go over to Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Critton to perhaps talk about what they think about my suggestion. Mr. Berger? MR. BERGER: I -- I'd like to hear what they say. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? MS. SHULLMAN: Agreed. THE COURT: Mr. Goldberger? MR. GOLDBERGER: Your Honor - THE COURT: I mean, it looks like they just handed up an Agreed Order to sign. MR. GOLDBERGER: Well, if the Court -- I know the Court is trying to short circuit here and the idea in theory is not horrible, it's not terrible, it's actually not so bad. But let me alert the Court to a couple of issues. First of all, this is not something that came up ahead of time where we were moving to close a hearing or file documents under seal and the Rules of Judicial Administration makes an important distinction between things that are done in advance and things that come up during a hearing and the fact that maybe it goes to the Rule -- talk about situations that arise during the course EFTA00183621 Proceedings June 10, 2009 of a hearing, that the Rules would not apply to that. Secondly, H.'s Motion to Intervene is brought under a Rule that does not apply because she brought it under a Rule that applies to non-criminal cases. Having said that I know the Court's desire to get to the issues here and I just need to alert the Court to one other matter because I think its really important. The Plaintiff's, E.W., has this agreement already. They have this agreement. Counsel will tell you they have this agreement. There have been two hearings in front of Judge Marra who has the Federal cases here. They moved to unseal the non-prosecution agreement in front of Judge Marra. He entered an initial Order, a very, very well reasoned order which I have a copy for the Court. THE COURT: Oh, thanks. MR. GOLDBERGER: He entered a very, very well reasoned order weighing the interest of the Plaintiffs to have access to the non-prosecution agreement with the confidentiality that the parties intended to be part of this agreement. And what he did, he said they can have this agreement. They can review it all they want. If they want to review it with somebody else, they need. to give them a copy of this Order that it is not to be disclosed to anyone else. Subsequent to that -- so that's the Rule that's in place right now. Subsequent to that the EFTA00183622 Proceedings June 10, 2009 Plaintiffs went back and said we want to disseminate this Order. We want to disseminate this agreement to other parties and Judge Marra entered a second Order denying that request and said, no. My Order is in place but if you have some compelling reason why you want this agreement to be disseminated to others, file a motion and come back to πe . THE COURT: This is as a result of some civil litigation pending in the Federal Courthouse? MR. GOLDBERGER: Yes. THE COURT: As opposed to any criminal prosecution going on? MR. GOLDBERGER: It is civil proceedings that are going on in Federal Court. But in the interest of comedy, Your Honor, the Court has ruled on the confidentiality agreement and has put a well reasoned procedure into place. If the parties want that agreement unsealed where they need to go is go back to Federal Court and Judge Marra invited them to do so. THE COURT: That may be as it pertains to... but what about The Post? MR. GOLDBERGER: I think -- and I think I know where the Court is going on this. If The Post's position is the public has right to acc -- access to this then there is a procedure in place and ultimately the Court has to conduct EFTA00183623 Proceedings June 10, 2009 a hearing and do the 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 have a hearing in front of the Court. THE COURT: Well, let's do -- I'm thinking out loud. I'm not ruling. I will give you all a chance to argue further, but this is what I'm thinking I will do, grant the Motion to Intervene. It gives standing to ■. It gives standing to The Post to contest the fact that these were sealed. And then I will shift the burden back on the State and Defendant, Mr. Epstein, to petition the Court to seal these documents. Until such time that I rule on that I will leave them under seal because they might have been correctly sealed but the procedure wasn't followed. There's got to be notice. You've got to comply with the Administrative order 2.303. You've got to comply with the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420(d). I think even though that's a civil -- it addresses a civil matter this is, you know, in the nature of a civil procedure. So, I'll do that. And thank you for these Orders. So, where do we go from here? I'm thinking out loud, not ruling. Mr. Berger? MR. BERGER: Judge, with all due respect I completely disagree with counsel's characterization of EFTA00183624 Proceedings June 10, 2009 those two Orders. I don't know if he handed up both to you? THE COURT: I do. MR. BERGER: They simply do not say what he tells you they say. THE COURT: I’ll read them -MR. BERGER: All right. right. THE COURT: -- and I'll allow you to make that argument - MR. BERGER: And -- and - THE COURT: -- at the time of the Renewed Motion to MR. BERGER: All right. And, also, I don't think the Court -- I think the Court needs to deal with this immediately, expeditiously. This is a matter that the Supreme Court has placed incredible scrutiny over. And the Rule that we are traveling under -- we're not only traveling under a Rule of Judicial Administration that applies to criminal and civil cases, we're applying to an Administrative Order of this Court that was in place when the sealing was done and that superseded the sealing. MR. BERGER: I'm just saying, I respectfully request that the Court not delay this one minute. THE COURT: You've got the agreements. EFTA00183625 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 MR. BERGER: Pardon me? THE COURT: You've got the agreements anyway. You've got what's under seal. MR. BERGER: Judge, we cannot do anything with them. THE COURT: Take that up with Judge Marra. MR. BERGER: No, sir. That is not what the Order says. May I quote Judge Marra. "If a specific tangible need arises in a civil case the relief should be sought in that case." In other words, the civil cases which are in front of Judge Hafele is one forum that Judge Marra said go to it. Judge Marra did not say that this Court does not have jurisdiction to unseal its own sealed records or to vacate its own Order sealing. And any characterization is -- is false. THE COURT: I'll take a look at it and I'll draw from it what it says -- what I think it says. I appreciate your zealous representation of your client. Please, it appears as though you're yelling at me. MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor? THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? MR. BERGER: Judge, this happens to be a very serious matter and every day of delay delays our discovery. THE COURT: Ms. Shullman? MS. SHULLMAN: Your Honor, if I may be heard on the EFTA00183626 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 issue as well. As a representative of the public's right of access - THE COURT: Right. MS. SHULLMAN: -- here essentially, I would agree with Mr. Berger that we need an immediate hearing on this issue. That's what we're here to do today. I think I heard Your Honor say that he's not clear that the procedures were applied. My review of the record does not reveal that the procedures were complied with. My review is similar to Your Honor's. It looks like sort of everybody approached the bench and Judge Pucillo said let's take it under seal. If Mr. Epstein's counsel is not prepared to go forward today and meet his burden, then I would ask that this Court set a hearing as soon as practical because the right solution here should be to unseal the records and then, you know - THE COURT: I've gotcha. MS. SHULLMAN: -- and they have to make a motion. THE COURT: Well, what house is on fire? I mean, what is the -- I think what they have to do is they've got to give ten days notice pursuant to the Rule -- the Administrative Order, Rules of Judicial Administration, to go through that process. What -- what prejudice is there? What house is burning down if I say okay. State and defense, go ahead and expeditiously move through the EFTA00183627 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 2 process and let's get this back on my docket as quickly as possible and give them until Friday to file their notice and ten days after that we have an evidentiary hearing. I go through the process then. What bad thing is going to happen by waiting these extra twelve to fifteen days? MS. SHULLIMAN: The bad thing that's going to happen, Your Honor, is that the status quo in Florida is that the constitutional right of access is openness. THE COURT: Right. MS. SHULLMAN: You know, certainly if Your Honor is inclined to postpone this hearing I would ask that it be done expeditiously as you suggest. THE COURT: Yeah. MS. SHULLMAN: You know, Friday and then ten days thereafter, it just delays access for another two weeks and it infringes on our rights. THE COURT: I agree. Mr. Berger, I will let you answer that same question. MR. BERGER: I don't think - THE COURT: Anything specific rather than -MR. BERGER: Yes. THE COURT: You know, anything closed that the people are allowed to look at is a transgression and any transgression is bad, but anything unique beyond that? MR. BERGER: Your Honor -- Your Honor, I do not EFTA00183628 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 believe that this Court has the jurisdiction to revisit the propriety of the sealing of these records and give the Defendant or the State, for that matter, a second bite at the apple. If the records are sealed improperly, which the Court has said on its face that appears to have occurred, I do not believe that this Court has jurisdiction to allow them a second bite at the apple to go through with the notice requirements. They should have done that in front of Judge Pucillo a year ago and they did not do it. The Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420 simply does not give this Court the right to reactivate the procedure that you outlined. THE COURT: Okay. MR. BERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Anything further, Mr. Goldberger or Mr. Critton? MR. GOLDBERGER: Just note, Your Honor, as far as the timing of this and we want to do this expeditiously, of course, this sealing occurred not last week, not two weeks ago, not four months ago but eleven and one half months ago. The Post reported this last July. So, I understand the right for the pubic to have access and we want to do this as quickly as possible but there is no fire here. There is no house burning. THE COURT: Then I'll go ahead and enter an Order as EFTA00183629 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 I've indicated, that is that I'll grant the Intervener's Motion to Intervene. You have standing. I will order that the State and/or the defense by noon Friday file a Notice of -- comply with the Administrative Order 2.303 and the Judicial Rule -- the Rule of Judicial Administration 2.420, paragraph d, that outlines the procedures to seal files in these types of cases and then we'll get a hearing scheduled for argument on whether or not they will be sealed. Until that time they will remain sealed because Judge Pucillo signed off on the order and I'm not inclined to disturb that until I find more about the merits of the movant's position. MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: Anybody want to reduce any of that mess to a written Order? MR. EDWARDS: I'd like to Your Honor. I'd like to know if you're going to give us a hearing date today. THE COURT: I'll deal with that. Yeah. Let me give you some time. How much time do you think it's going to take? I don't think I'm going to have any surprises. How much time do you think we need? A half hour? MR. EDWARDS: Not more. I'd say an hour at the longest. THE COURT: I'm not taking evidence or anything like that. In the meantime, do you agree it would be prudent EFTA00183630 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1 for me to take a look and see what the content of these things are so I can be articulate on what -- their know about? I didn't do that for today's hearing? MR. GOLDBERGER: The defense - MR. EDHARDS: The non-prosecution agreement? THE COURT: Right. Whatever is under seal. Whatever it is that's under seal I'll take a look at it so that I can at least have a feel for apparently what you all know and I don't. MR. GOLDBERGER: The defense has no objection. THE COURT: Okay. I'll go ahead and read those two sealed documents and I'll see you back here, assuming that Mr. Goldberger and Mr. Critton get that done between now and Friday. Ten days from this Friday is the 22nd. How about we do this on the 25th at 1:30? MR. GOLDBERGER: One moment, Your Honor. That's fine with me. MR. BERGER: Thank you. THE COURT: All right. Great. Thank you so much, MR. GOLDBERGER: Thank you, Judge. (PROCEDINGS CONCLUED) EFTA00183631 June 10, 2009 Proceedings 1 CERTIFICATE I, LOUANNE RAWLS, certify that I was authorized to and did digitally report the foregoing proceedings and that the transcript is a true and complete record of my notes. Dated this 10th day of June, 2009. EFTA00183632 Proceedings June 10, 2009 1
Aalertarises4:9 5:4,7,8character...
acc5:18 6:610:88:23,24 9:48:25 10:13
7:24allowarticulate9:7,10,13circuit
access5:3 9:8 13:615:29:23 10:1,41:1,1 5:16
11:2 12:8allowedassuming10:6,21civil
12:15 13:2212:2315:1211:5 12:177:8,13 8:19
addendumamendmentAtterbury12:19,21,258:19,20
4:14and/or2:313:14 15:189:19 10:8,9
addresses14:3Australianbeyondclear
8:19announceauthorizedbit11:7
adduced3:916:43:15client
3:4.answerAvebite3:21 10:17
Adler12:182:313:3,7close
2:12AnybodyAvenueBlvd5:20
Administr...3:23 14:142:192:13closed
5:22 8:18anywayAxxBrad12:22
9:18 11:2210:21:4,43:24Closure
13:10 14:5apparentlya.mBradley8:4
Administr...15:81:19,19 3:62:11 3:11Colbath
8:17 9:20appearance2:11 3:111:17 3:4
11:22 14:43:9BBralowcome
advanceappearancesback2:18 3:135:23 7:6
5:232:1 3:77:1,6,18broughtcomedy
agoappears8:11 12:16:2,37:14
13:9,20,204:13,1615:12burdencompelling
13:2110:18 13:5bad4:22 8:117:5 8:2
agreeapple5:18 12:4,611:13complete
11:4 12:1713:4,712:24Burman16:6
14:25appliedbalancing2:6completely
Agreed11:88:1burning8:25
liiBeach11:24 13:24complied
11
5:10app9
14es:
4 91:2
1920m
621l
25
:,p
agreement:,co
4:13,14apply2:4,7 3:5,5y
15C 8:16,17 14:4
12
6:86:1,33:133:1 16:1,1CONCLUDED
8
9
EFTA00183633 Proceedings June 10, 2009 2
6:14,23d1:3evidencefind
correctlyddocket14:2414:11
8:153:1 14:612:1evidentiaryfine
counseldatedocuments8:3 12:315:16
6:8 11:1214:174:15,19,25expeditio...fire
counsel'sDated5:2,21 8:139:15 11:2511:19 13:24
8:2516:815:1212:12 13:18First
Countydaydrawextra5:19
.1:2,20 3:510:22 16:810:1512:5FL
coupledaysDriveE-D-N-A-R...2:4,7,14,21
5:1811:21 12:3,52:74:2Flagler
course12:14 15:14due2:7
5:25 13:19deal8:242:9 3:11,22Florida
Court9:14 14:183:24 4:71:2,6,21,24
15E6:2,7 7:203:5 12:7
1:1 3:8
 Deanna
 20
 3:18E8:9followed
 23
  2:17 3:12
  17
 4:1
 3 2:13 3:14:19 8:15
 7 1
 10
  Defendant
  
113:21 16:1
131F following
5:9
  1:13 2:2
  5
5:15,16,18  EdwardsF3:3
  8:12 13:3
6:6,14,15defense2:11 3:11,2416:1foregoing
7:8,11,1411:25 14:33:24 4:2,2face16:5
7:15,18,2015:414:16,2213:5
  10
7:23,25 8:5delayfact2:14,21
8:6,12 9:39:24 10:22eleven5:24 8:10forum
9:6,8,11,14delays13:20false10:10
9:14,16,2010:22 12:15enter10:14forward
9:22,24,25denying13:25far11:12
10:2,5,11entered13:17four
10:15,20,247:36:12,16 7:3Federal13
desireentitled20
11:3,14,176:10 7:9
14 Frida
EFTA00183634 June 10, 2009
13:10 14:17hear5:22 6:710:10,11,21LoCiero
14:185:8improperly11:11 13:92:18 3:13
givesheard13:414:10 15:20longest
8:9,1010:25 11:6inclinedJudicial14:23
gohearing12:11 14:101:1 5:21look
5:5 7:18,185:20,24 6:1incredible8:18 9:188:1 10:15
8:22 10:115:12,3,59:1611:22 13:1012:23 15:1
11:12,23,2511:5,14indicated14:5,515:7
12:4 13:712:3,1114:1Julylooks
13:25 15:1114:7,17infringes13:215:13 11:10
goes15:312:16j+pLouanne
5:24hearingsinitial4:241:23 16:4,11
going6:106:12jumpingloud
7:12,14,23HELDintended4:208:6,22
8:3 12:4,61:166:19June
14:17,19,20Honorinterest1:18 3:6M
Goldberger3:10,12 4:46:17 7:1416:8Marra
2:2,3 4:4,55:12 7:158:2jurisdiction6:10,12 7:3
5:5,11,1210:19,25Intervene10:12 13:1,67:19 10:5,7
5:15 6:1611:7 12:74:8 6:2 8:9K10:10,11
7:10,13,2212:10,25,2514:2kindmatter
13:15,1713:17 14:16interveners5:26:6 8:19
14:13 15:415:164:17know9:15 10:22
15:10,13,16Honorable=intervener's4:10,11,1213:3
15:201:17 3:414:14:20 5:15mean
goodHonor'sinvited6:5 7:225:13 11:19
3:20,2111:107:198:20 9:1meet
gotchahoopsissue11:16 12:1011:13
11:174:2411:1,612:14,22merits
governmenthorribleissues14:17 15:214:11
8:25:175:19 6:515:8meess
granthour14:14
5:1 8:8 14:13:6 14:21,22JLminute
greathouseJLas9:24
8:4 15:1911:19,241:17 2:10,112:13moment
13:243:10Lauderdale15:16
HhurJack2:14,21months
Hafele4:242:2 4:5leave13:20,21
10:10Jeffrey8:14morning
halfI1:11,17 3:4let's3:20,21
13:20 14:21idea4:68:6 11:11motion
handed5:16JR12:14:7 6:2 7:6
5:13 9:1immediate2:6litigation8:9 9:11
happen11:5Judge7 : 911:18 14:2
12:5,6immediately3:25 6:10,12littlemovant's
happens9:157:3,8 8:2414:12
10:21important10:4,5,7,103:15move
EFTA00183635
11:25objection10:111:2312:113:23
noved8:4 15:10partpreparedquo
6:11occurred6:1911:1212:7
noving13:5,19partiesprocedurallyquote
4:22 5:20Office6:19 7:3,175:310:7
1:25partyprocedure
NOh2:9,16 4:237:16,25 8:15R
N6:15peak8:20 13:11R
2:7 3:1okay4:18procedures3:1 16:1
name4:3 11:24pending4:19 11:7,9Rawls
4:113:13 15:117:914:61:23 16:4,11
natureOlaspeopleproceedingsreactivate
8:202:1312:231:16 3:313:11
needopennesspertains7:13 15:21read
6:6,22 7:1812:87:2016:59:6 15:11
10:8 11:5opportunitypetitionprocessreally
14:214:248:1211:23 12:1,46.7
needsopposedPLproperreason
9:147:112:184:187:5
non-criminalorderplaceproprietyreasoned
6:45:2,14 6:136:25 7:4,1713:26:13,17 7:16
non-party6:13,17,237:25 9:20prosecutionrecord
3:11,137:2,3,4placed7:113:9 11:8
non-prose...8:17 9:209:16prudent16:6
6:11,18 15:510:6,13Plaintiff14:25records
noon11:22 13:251:8pubic4:8 10:12
14:314:2,4,10Plaintiffs13:2211:15 13:2
NOS14:156:17 7:1public13:4
1:4OrdersPlaintiff's1:24 7:24reduce
Notary8:21 9:16:7public's14:14
1:24oughtPlease11:1relief
note4:1210:17Pucillo10:8
13:17outlinedposition11:11 13:9remain
noted13:127:23 14:1214:1014:9
3.7outlinespossiblepunitiveREMEMBERED
notes14:612:2 13:234:173:3
16:6PostpurposeRenewed
notice@P2:16 3:14,164:89:11
8:16 11:21P7:21 8:10pursuantreport
12:2 13:83:113:2111:2116:5
14:3Palmpostponeputreported
N.E.1:2,20,21,2512:117:161:23 13:21
2:192:4,7 3:5,5Post'srepresent...
3:134:7 7:23Q10:17
Oparagraphpracticalquestionrepresent...
3:114:611:1412:1811:1
Pardonprejudicequicklyrequest
4 EFTA00183636 Proceedings June 10, 2009 trying two 1500 EFTA00183637