EFTA00193427¶
entered until June 30,2008. I advised the court that Epstein’s attorneys sought higher review of the agreement within the DOJ.¶
As to the motion to seal the government’s response, the court asked if that was necessary any more, since a public hearing had been held and much of what was filed had been discussed. I argued that the government had two bases for sealing: (1) protection of the privacy of the minor victims; and (2) confidentiality of negotiations with Epstein’s attorneys and the confidentiality clause in the Agreement. Edwards waived any protection for his clients, two of whom were present in court (C.W. and T.M.) As to the confidentiality, the court found that the discussions regarding the potential impeachment of the victims because of the availability of relief under 18 U.S.C. 2255 had already been discussed at the hearing. I argued that the exact clause in the agreement pertaining to section 2255 had been cited in the notification letters to C.W. and S.R., which were filed, and the government had agreed to notify Epstein before making any disclosure. The court stated that the disclosure was being done pursuant to its order, not by the government’s action. I told the court the government wanted to register its objection.¶
The court ordered the government’s response, Marie’s declaration, and the attachments, unsealed. Also, Edwards filed a reply, which is also a public record document.¶
The court noted that, since Epstein had entered his plea and was sentenced, this was no longer an emergency. Both parties agreed. The court wanted to know if any evidentiary hearing need to be held. Since there is a dispute over what the FBI agents told C.W. in September 2007, I asked the court to permit the parties to speak to determine if there are any factual disputes which require a hearing. The court agreed.¶
There was a reporter from the Sun Sentinel present in the audience.¶
Dexter¶
518¶