File 016420

Images

Text

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION-FIRST DEPARTMENT
··-····-·············-·-····-·····-··-··-············-··-···· X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK,
App. Div. No. 6081
- against -
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Respondent,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from New York Supreme Court,
New York County, Index No. 30129/10
(Pickholz, J.)
X
NOTICE OF MOTION BY NYP HOLDINGS, INC. TO UNSEAL APPELLATE BRIEFS
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, upon the accompanying affirmation of John M. Browning
sworn to on January 11, 2019, together with the exhibits annexed thereto, the accompanying
memorandum of law and all pleadings and proceedings heretofore had herein, non-party movant
NYP Holdings, Inc., by its undersigned counsel, will move this Court at a term thereof to be held
at the Appellate Division Courthouse located at 27 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10010,
on January 21, 2019, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an order
unsealing the briefs in the above-captioned appeal.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that answering papers, if any, shall be served upon
the undersigned on or before the last date permitted by CPLR 2214.
4848-4442-5859v.l 3930033-000039
Dated: New Yori,, New York
January 11, 2019
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
By: __
Robert D. Balin
John M. Browning
-yv_/�ffj-
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 489-8230
Facsimile: (212) 489-8340
Email: robbalin@dwt.com
johnbrowning@dwt.com
Attorneys for Non-Party Movant NYP Holdings,
Inc.
4848-4442-5859v.l 3930033-000039
2
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION
FIRST DEPARTMENT
··-· •••• -----. ----------- - ·-. ·--- • ------. -· .. --- ---. -- . -- . ---•• -•• -. -•. X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Respondent,
- against
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Defendant-Appellant.
X
App. Div. No. 6081
On Appeal from New York
Supreme Court, New York
County, Index No. 30129/10
(Pickholz, J.)
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
STATE OF NEW YORK )
) ss.:
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
JOHN BROWNING, being duly sworn, states, I am not a party to the action, am over 18
years of age and reside in Kings County, New York. On January 14, 2018, I served a true and
correct copy of the annexed by mail in the custody of Federal Express directed to the following:
Martin Weinberg
20 Park Place, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Karen Friedman Agnifilo
Assistant District Attorney - New York County
One Hogan Place
New York, New York 10013
David Aronberg
State Attorney
15 th Judicial Circuit- Palm Beach County Florida
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
Dexter Lee
Assistant U.S. Attorney
Southern District of Florida
99 N.E. 4th Street
Miami, FL 33132
Dated: New York, New York
4848-4442-5859v. l 3930033-000039
3
January 11, 2019
Sworn to before me this
11th day of January, 2019
(
. ... . LORETTA E. PEARV
NoWY Public, State of New Yo$
No. 24-4931817
Com�f��:S�r!'f ��ty, at)Jd
. ·• -· ---... . . .
4848-4442-5859v.l 3930033-000039
4
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION -FIRST DEPARTMENT
------------------------- - -------- - -------------- --------- ---
X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK,
App. Div. No. 6081
- against
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Respondent,
Defendant-Appellant.
AFFIRMATION OF JOHN M.
BROWNING IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION TO UNSEAL
On Appeal from New York Supreme Court,
New York County, Index No. 30129/10
(Pickholz, J.)
John M. Browning, an attorney duly admitted to practice before the Courts of the State of
New York, affirms the following under penalties of perjury:
1. I am an associate of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, attorneys for non-party movant
NYP Holdings, Inc., publisher of the New York Post (the "Post") and I submit this affirmation in
support of the Post's motion to unseal the briefs filed by the parties in the above-captioned
appeal.
2. The grounds for unsealing the appeal briefs in this action are set forth in the
accompanying memorandum of law. I submit this affirmation to annex relevant documents and
to state facts that are relevant to this motion, of which I have personal knowledge.
3. Annexed hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an article written by
Julie K. Brown and published by the Miami Herald on November 28, 2018, entitled "Cops
worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break."
4. Annexed hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of an article written by
Rebecca Rosenberg and Danika Fears, which was published by the Post on January 7, 2015,
entitled "DA's office 'went easy' on sex offender Epstein."
4840-5788-8644v. I 3930033-000039
5. Annexed hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of an article written by
Rebecca Rosenberg, Larry Celona, Susan Edelman and Isabel Vincent, which was published by
the Post on December 1, 2018, entitled "Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after
botching investigation."
6. On or about December 4, 2018, Post reporter Susan Edelman contacted Danny
Frost, Director of Communications for Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance Jr., and
requested copies of the briefs filed by the District Attorney's office in the above-captioned
appeal. Ms. Edelman stated that names of victims could be redacted before the briefs were
disclosed.
7. Mr. Frost responded that he could not provide Ms. Edelman with copies of the
briefs because they were filed under seal pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law 50-b and that the
District Attorney's office could only release the briefs, even with victims' names redacted, if this
Court ordered the briefs to be unsealed.
8. Mr. Frost further indicated by email that "[i]f the Post petitions the court, and the
court asks the People for our position, we will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief'
(emphasis in original). A true and correct copy of that email correspondence is annexed hereto
as Exhibit D.
9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented
appellant Jeffi-ey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no
longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred me to Martin Weinberg, who currently acts as counsel
for Mr. Epstein.
I 0.
On or about December 20, 2018, I spoke with Mr. Weinberg and explained the
nature of the Post's motion to unseal the redacted briefs and the position taken by the Manhattan
4840-5788-8644v. I 3930033-000039
District Attorney. Mr. Weinberg told me that he was unable to take a position on the Post's
motion without first reviewing it and reserved the right to file an opposition, if necessary.
11. On December 21, 2018, the Post filed a motion requesting an order unsealing the
appellate briefs and directing the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to produce copies with
the names of victims redacted (the "December 21 Motion").
12. On or about December 28, 2018, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office filed an
affirmation in response to the Post's motion, signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen
Friedman Agnifilo and dated December 28, 2018 (the "DA Affirmation"). A true and correct
copy of the Affirmation is annexed hereto as Exhibit E.
13. On January 2, 2019, I spoke with Ms. Friedman Agnifilo to discuss the DA
Affirmation. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo told me that there had been a miscommunication by Mr.
Frost and that the District Attorney's Office did oppose the December 21 Motion. Ms. Friedman
Agnifilo also told me that, in the view of the District Attorney's Office, the Post should give
notice of their motion to unseal the appeal briefs to the prosecutors in Florida that handled the
prosecution that led to Mr. Epstein's conviction for solicitation of prostitution from a minor. The
Post disagrees with that position but nevertheless decided to moot any procedural issues related
to requirements to notify the Florida prosecutors. Ms. Friedman Agnifilo subsequently informed
me that the agency in Florida responsible for Mr. Epstein's prosecution was the Palm Beach
County State Attorney's Office.
14. On January 3, 2019, I received an email from Mr. Weinberg stating that "after
consideration of your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain
identities, we take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein." A true and correct copy of that email is
annexed hereto as Exhibit F.
4840-5788-8644v. l 3930033-000039
15. On January 4, 2019, the Post filed a letter with this Court voluntarily withdrawing
the December 21 Motion without prejudice to refile in order to moot the procedural issues raised
by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office with respect to furnishing notice to prosecutors in
Florida. A true and correct copy of that letter is annexed as Exhibit G.
16. On or about January 10, 2019, I contacted the Palm Beach County State
Attorney's Office to inform it of the Post's intention to file a motion to unseal the appellate
briefs and to inquire about where to send a copy of the motion. A member of the Office of State
Attorney David Aronberg instructed me to send a digital copy of the motion to e­
postconviction@sa15.org and to send a paper copy to the State Attorney's main offices.
17. On or about January 10 and January 11, 2019, I spoke with Sarah J. Schall,
Special Counsel to the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of Florida, to inform her Office of
the Post's intention to file a motion to unseal the appellate briefs and to inquire about where to
send a copy of the motion. Ms. Schall instructed me to send a digital copy of the motion papers
to her email address and to forward hard copies to Dexter Lee.
Dated: New York, New York
January 11, 2019
4840-5788-8644v.J 3930033-000039
EXHIBIT A
Cops worked to put serial sex
abuser in prison. Prosecutors
worked to cut him a break
BY JULIE K. BROWN
NOV. 28, 2018
PERVERSION
of JUSTICE
A decade before #Me Too, a multimillionaire sex offender from Florida got the ultimate
break.
Palm Beach, Florida
November 2004
Jane Doe
Michelle Licata climbed a narrow, winding staircase, past walls covered with
photographs of naked girls. At the top of the stairwell was a vast master bed and
bath, with cream-colored shag carpeting and a hot pink and mint green sofa.
The room was dimly lit and very cold.
There was a vanity, a massage table and a timer.
A silver-haired man wearing nothing but a white towel came into the room. He
lay facedown on a massage table, and while talking on a phone, directed Licata to
rub his back, legs and feet.
Micelle Licata, is one of the over 100 middle school and high school-aged girls that Palm Beach billionaire, Jeffrey
Epstein, is accused of sexually assaulting. Licata, now an adult living near Nashville, recalls her experience with
Epstein at his Palm Beach mansion while she was a sophomore at Royal Palm Beach High School.
EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALD.COM
After he hung up, the man turned over and dropped his towel, exposing himself.
He told Licata to get comfortable and then, in a firm voice, told her to take off
her clothes.
At 16, Licata had never before been fully naked in front of anyone. Shaking and
panicked, she mechanically pulled off her jeans and stripped down to her
underwear. He set the timer for 30 minutes and then reached over and
unsnapped her bra. He then began touching her with one hand and masturbating
himself with the other.
"I kept looking at the timer because I didn't want to have this mental image of
what he was doing," she remembered of the massage. "He kept trying to put his
fingers inside me and told me to pinch his nipples. He was mostly saying 'just do
that, harder, harder and do this .... ' "
After he ejaculated, he stood up and walked to the shower, dismissing her as if
she had been in history class.
It wasn't long before a lot of Licata's fellow students at Royal Palm Beach High
School had heard about "a creepy old guy" named Jeffrey who lived in a pink
waterfront mansion and was paying girls $200 to $300 to give him massages that
quickly turned sexual.
Eventually, the Palm Beach police, and then the FBI, came knocking on Licata's
door. In the police report, Licata was referred to as a Jane Doe in order to protect
her identity as a minor.
Palm Beach home of registered sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein.
PEDRO PORTAL PPORTAL@MIAMIHERALD.COM
There would be many Jane Does to follow: Jane Doe No. 3, Jane Doe No. 4, Jane
Does 5, 6, 7, 8 - and as the years went by- Jane Does 102 and 103.
Long before #MeToo became the catalyst for a women's movement about sexual
assault - and a decade before the fall of Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and U.S.
Olympic gymnastics doctor Larry Nassar - there was Jeffrey Edward Epstein.
Epstein, a multimillionaire hedge fund manager whose friends included a
constellation of entertainers, politicians, business titans and royalty, for years
lured teenag�girls to his Palm Beach mansion as P-art of a cult-like sex P-Y-ramid
scheme, police in the town of Palm Beach found.
The girls arrived, sometimes by taxi, for trysts at all hours of the day and night.
Few were told much more than that they would be paid to give an old man a
massage - and that he might ask them to strip down to their underwear or get
naked. But what began as a massage often led to masturbation, oral sex,
intercourse and other sex acts, police and court records show. The alleged abuse
dates back to 2001 and went on for years.
Palm Beach multimillionaire Jeffrey Epstein is a free man, despite sexually abusing dozens of underage girls
according to police and prosecutors. His victims have never had a voice, until now.
BY EMILY MICHOT ill I JULIE K. BROWN ill
In 2007, despite ample physical evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating
the girls' stories, federal prosecutors and Epstein's lawyers quietly put together a
remarkable deal for Epstein, then 54. He agreed to plead guilty to two felony
prostitution charges in state court, and in exchange, he and his accomplices
received immunity from federal sex-trafficking charges that could have sent him
to prison for life.
He served 13 months in a private wing of the Palm Beach County stockade. His
.alkged co-consP-irators, who helped schedule his sex sessions, were never
prosecuted.
The deal, called a federal non-prosecution agreement, was sealed so that no one
- not even his victims - could know the full scope of Epstein's crimes and who
else was involved. The U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta,-™..P-ersonall y:
involved in the negotiations, records, letters and emails show.
Acosta is now a member of President Donald Trump's Cabinet. As U.S. secretary
of labor, he has oversight over international child labor laws and human
trafficking and had recently been mentioned as a possible successor to farmer
U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who resigned under pressure in early
November. It was reported on Thursday, a day after this story posted online, that
he was no longer in the running.
C
Alex Acosta, Federal Attorney, speaks during a press conference celebrated during the opening sesion of South
Florida Anti-Gang Summit at Miami Hilton Hotel on Sept. 29, 2008 in Miami, Fl. (Cristobal Herrera/Sun
Sentinel/TNS)
CRISTOBAL HERRERA TNS
The Miami Herald anal y: zed thousands of P-ages of court records and lawsuits,
witness depositions and newly released FBI documents, and also identified more
than 80 women who say they were victimized. They are scattered around the
country and abroad. Until now, those victims - today in their late 20s and early
30s - have never spoken publicly about how they felt shamed, silenced and
betrayed by the very people in the criminal justice system who were supposed to
hold Epstein accountable.
"How come people who don't have money get sent to jail - and can't even make
bail - and they have to do their time and sit there and think about what they did
wrong? He had no repercussions and doesn't even believe he did anything
wrong," said Licata, now 30.
Micelle Licata, is one of the over 100 middle school and high school-aged girls that Palm Beach billionaire, Jeffrey
Epstein, is accused of sexually assaulting. Licata, now an adult living near Nashville, recalls her experience with
Epstein at his Palm Beach mansion while she was a sophomore at Royal Palm Beach High School.
EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALD.COM
Licata is among 36 women who were officially identified by the FBI and the U.S.
Attorney's Office as victims of Epstein, now 65. But after the FBI case was closed
in 2008, witnesses and alleged victims testified in civil court that there were
hundreds of girls who were brought to Epstein's homes, including girls from
Europe, Latin America and former Soviet Republic countries.
But Acosta and Epstein's armada of attorneys - Harvard professor Alan
Dershowitz, Jay Lefkowitz, Gerald Lefcourt, Jack Goldberger, Roy Black, Guy
Lewis and former Whitewater special prosecutor Kenneth Starr - reached a
consensus: Epstein would never serve time in a federal or state prison.
READ NEXT
I LOCAL I
Sex abuser Jeffrey Epstein was surrounded by powerful people. Here's a sampling
NOVEMBER 28, 2018 8:00 AM
------------- ----·----
---·--·- --· ----------·-----
POLICE UNDER PRESSURE
There were really just two people willing to risk their careers to go after Epstein:
Palm Beach Police Chief Michael Reiter and Detective Joseph Recarey.
For Reiter, business tycoon Jeffrey Epstein wasn't any more formidable than any
of the other 8,000 or so wealthy and powerful people living on the island. Police
had handled sensational cases involving wealthy residents before - from the
murders of heiresses to the rape case involving William Kennedy Smith, of the
Kennedy family.
The easternmost town in Florida, Palm Beach is a 10.4-square-mile barrier island
between the Intracoastal Waterway and the Atlantic Ocean populated by some of
the richest people in the country. President Trump has his "winter White House"
in Palm Beach, and the town makes news as much for its glitz as it does for its
unusual efforts to preserve its well-mannered image, like banning shirtless
Joggers.
But it was a little surprising, even to Reiter, to learn that one of its residents had a
revolving door of middle and high school girls coming to his gated compound
throughout the day and night.
In their first on-the-record media interviews about the case, Reiter and Recarey
revealed new details about the investigation, and how they were, in their view,
pressured by then-Palm Beach State Attorney Barry Krischer to downgrade the
case to a misdemeanor or drop it altogether.
Former Palm Beach County Police Detective Joe Recarey was the lead detective on the solicitation-of-minors case
against billionaire Jeffrey Epstein.
EMILY MICHOT EMICHOT@MIAMIHERALD.COM
Between March of 2005 -when the case was opened -and seven months later,
when police executed a search warrant at Epstein's home, Recarey had identified
21 possible victims, according to a copy of the unredacted police report obtained
by the Herald. By the time police felt they had enough evidence to arrest Epstein
on sex charges, they had identified about 3 5 possible underage victims and were
tracking down at least a dozen more, the police report said.
"I was surprised at how quickly it snowballed. I thought at some point there
would be a last interview, but the next victim would supply me with three or four
more names and the next one had three or four names and it just kept getting
bigger and bigger,'' Recarey said.
By then, word had gotten back to Epstein from some of the girls that they had
been questioned by police. Epstein hired famed lawyer Alan Dershowitz.
"Alan Dershowitz flew down and met privately with Krischer," Recarey said. "And
the shenanigans that happened, I don't think I've ever seen or heard of before."
Police reports show that Epstein's private investigators attempted to conduct
interviews while posing as cops; that they picked through Reiter's trash in search
of dirt to discredit him; and that the private investigators were accused of
following the girls and their families. In one case, the father of one girl claimed
he had been run off the road by a private investigator, police and court reports
show.
Support investigative journalism
The Miami Herald obtained thousands of FBI and court records, lawsuits, and witness depositions, and went to
federal court in New York to access sealed documents in the reporting of "Perversion of Justice." The Herald
also tracked down more than 60 women who said they were victims, some of whom had never spoken of the
abuse before.
Your digital subscription, starting at $0.99 for the first month, supports investigative journalism like this.
CLICK TO SUBSCRIBE
Several of the girls said they felt intimidated and frightened by Epstein and Sarah
Kellen, the millionaire's assistant and alleged scheduler of massages, who warned
them not to talk to police, according to the police report.
Dershowitz, in an interview with the Herald, said he had nothing to do with
gathering background on the girls - or in directing anyone to follow the police, or
the girls and their families.
"I'm not an investigator. My only job was to negotiate and try the case when it
comes to trial,'' he said.
He nevertheless convinced Krischer that the girls would not be credible on the
witness stand, according to Reiter and Recarey.
The defense team's investigators compiled dossiers on the victims in an effort to
show that Epstein's accusers had troubled pasts.
Dershowitz met with Krischer and Recarey, sharing with them the results of an
investigation into one of the girls, described by Dershowitz as "an accomplished
drama student" who hurled profanities at his investigator at "a furious pace."
10/27/99 - OPINION - Barry Krischer; P.B.Co. State Attorney. (AM)
"Our investigation had discovered at least one of her websites and I am enclosing
some examples ... the site goes on to detail, including photos, her apparent
fascination with marijuana, " Dershowitz wrote in an undated letter to Recarey.
He also disputed the claim that one of the defense team's private investigators
had misrepresented himself as a police officer.
Recarey stood his ground.
"His attorneys showed us a MySpace page where one of the-girls was holding a
beer in her hand, and they said, 'oh look, she is underage drinking,' " Recarey
recalled. "Well, tell me what teenager doesn't? Does that mean she isn't a victim
because she drank a beer? Basically, what you're telling me is the only victim of a
sexual battery could be a nun."
Krischer and the lead state prosecutor on the case, Assistant State Attorney Lanna
Belohlavek, began to dodge Recarey and Reiter's phone calls and emails, and they
dragged their feet on approving subpoenas, Reiter and Recarey said.
"Early on, it became clear that things had changed, from Krischer saying, 'we'll
put this guy away for life,' to 'these are all the reasons why we aren't going to
prosecute this,' " Reiter said.
Krischer, who is now retired and in private practice, did not respond to multiple
requests from the Herald for comment. Belohlavek also did not respond to an
email sent to her office.
"It became apparent to me that some of our evidence was being leaked to
Epstein's lawyers, who began to question everything that we had in our probable
cause affidavit," Reiter said.
The day of the search on Oct. 20, 2005, they found that most of Epstein's
computer hard drives, surveillance cameras and videos had been removed from
the house, leaving loose, dangling wires, according to the police report.
But the girls' description of the house squared with what detectives found, right
down to the hot pink couch and the dresser drawer of sex toys in Epstein's
bathroom.
Reiter said his own trash was disappearing from his house, as his life was put
under Epstein's microscope. Private investigators hired by Epstein's lawyers even
tracked down Reiter's grade school teachers, the former chief said. Questions
were raised about donations that Epstein had made to the police department,
even though Reiter had returned one of the donations shortly after the
investigation began.
Recarey, meanwhile, said he began to take different routes to and from work, and
even switched vehicles because he knew he was being tailed.
"At some point it became like a cat-and-mouse game. I would stop at a red light
and go. I knew they were there, and they knew I knew they were there. I was
concerned about my kids because I didn't know if it was someone that they hired
just out of prison that would hurt me or my family," Recarey said.
Despite relentless political pressure, Reiter and Recarey soldiered on, and their
determination yielded evidence that supported most of the girls' allegations, the
former cops said. They had phone records that showed Epstein and his assistant,
Kellen, had called many of the girls. Epstein's flight logs showed that the calls
were made when Epstein was in Palm Beach.
They obtained dozens of message pads from his home that read like a who's who
of famous people, including magician David Copperfield and Donald Trump, an
indication of Epstein's vast circle of influential friends. There were also messages
from girls, and their phone numbers matched those of many of the girls Recarey
had interviewed, Recarey said. They read: "Courtney called, she can come at 4,"
or "Tanya can't come at 7 p.m. tomorrow because she has soccer practice."
They also found naked photographs of underage girls in Epstein's closet, Recarey
said.
There were also witnesses: Two of Epstein's butlers gave Recarey sworn
interviews, confirming that young girls had been coming and going at the house.
One of the butlers, Alfredo Rodri gu ez, told Recarey that when he was tasked with
cleaning up the master bath after Epstein's sessions with the girls, he often
discovered sex toys. Once, he accidentally stumbled on a high school girl, whom
he identified, sleeping naked in Epstein's spa, he testified in a 2009 court
deposition.
Rodriguez said he was given the job of paying the girls, telling Recarey that he
was "a human ATM machine" because he was ordered by Epstein to keep $2,000
on him at all times. He was also assigned to buy the girls gifts. Rodri gu ez gave
Recarey copies of pages from a book that Epstein and his staff kept with the
names and phone numbers for many of the Palm Beach County girls, Recarey
said.
Rodriguez, however, held onto the bulk of Epstein's "little black book," and in
November 2009 tried to sell it for $50,000 to an undercover FBI agent posing as
a victim's lawyer. He was arrested and sentenced in 2012 to federal prison, and
died three years later following an illness. The book - listing personal phone
numbers for a cavalcade of Epstein's powerful friends and celebrities - eventually
became public as part of a civil lawsuit. It listed more than 100 female names
and phone numbers under the headings "massage" in every city where Epstein
had homes.
In May 2006, Recarey drew up probable cause affidavits, charging Epstein, two of
his assistants and one recruiter with sex-related crimes. Instead, Krischer took
what Recarey said was the unusual step of referring the case to a state grand jury.
Epstein was indicted in state court on a minor charge of solicitation of
prostitution.
Recarey said Krischer told him he didn't believe Epstein's accusers, and only two
of them were called before the state grand jury investigating the case - even
though police had lined up more than a dozen girls and witnesses at that time.
Believing that the case had been tainted, Reiter - that same month, May 2006 -
took a very public stance against Krischer, writing a letter, which was released to
the news media, calling on Krischer to remove himself from the case. The chief
then referred it to the FBI, which opened its own investigation in July 2006, FBI
records show.
Reiter said he was effectively blackballed in some Palm Beach circles as a result
of going over Krischer's head, and their relationship, once strong, would never be
the same.
Reiter has no regrets about what he did.
"There are challenges here that don't exist in a lot of other places because of the
affluence in the community, but the only way I could approach this case was that
none of that matters. The truth is still the truth. The facts are the facts.
Everybody is treated the same."
In the years that followed, several of the victims obtained lawyers and filed civil
lawsuits against Epstein. About two dozen lawsuits were filed, starting in 2008.
The early cases were particularly brutal for his victims, the court records show.
The girls faced fierce grilling from another pack of Epstein's civil attorneys, who
questioned them about their boyfriends, drinking, drug use, social media posts,
their parents and even their medical histories.
One girl was asked about her abortions, and her parents, who were Catholic and
knew nothing about the abortions, were also deposed and questioned.
Licata said the questions from Epstein's civil lawyers were so intimate that she
became paranoid that people were following her.
"His lawyers were just in my life inside and out. They asked if I had a baby, if I
had an abortion, 'did you sleep with 30 different guys' and 'do you think that
played a part?' I said, 'you're going to come at me like that when you represent a
guy who is doing this to hundreds of girls? How do you sleep at night?' "
BROOKLYN TO PALM BEACH
Jeffrey Epstein was born in Brooklyn, the son of a New York parks department
worker. In one of several depositions he gave as part of the lawsuits filed against
him, he said he attended the Cooper Union school for the advancement of
science and art and then studied physics at New York University. But he never
obtained a degree, instead going on to teach at the Dalton School, an elite K-12
private academy on Manhattan's Upper East Side. Various news profiles over the
years have speculated about how he made his vast fortune, calling him an
"International Moneyman of Mystery" and "The Talented Mr. Epstein."
He then struck out on his own, opening J. Epstein & Co. His fortunes improved
when he became a financial advisor for Leslie Wexner, founder of The Limited
stores and owner of Victoria's Secret brands. Later, Epstein would boast that he
would manage the portfolios of only those clients who had $1 billion or
more. This much is known: He got his start on Wall Street after being offered a
job by the father of one of his students. At Bear Steams, he became a derivative
specialist, applying complex math formulas and computer algorithms to evaluate
financial data and trends.
Through Wexner, he acquired a seven-story stone mansion that is considered the
largest private residence in Manhattan - a 21,000-square-foot fortress with
heated sidewalks that spans the entire block on 71st Street between Fifth and
Madison Avenues.
He also owns a 10,000-acre ranch, named "Zorro," in New Mexico, a private
island called "Little St. James" in the Virgin Islands, the $13 million house in
Palm Beach, a Gulfstream jet and, at one point, owned a Boeing 72 7.

Virginia Roberts says she was used as a sex slave for Jeffrey Epstein for years starting at the age of 16. Roberts
says that Epstein also lent her out to some of his wealthy, powerful acquaintances for sex.
COURTESY OF VIRGINIA ROBERTS
He has never been in the Forbes 400 list of the wealthiest Americans, largely
because the magazine has never been able to determine the source or the size of
his wealth.
He has been dogged by questions about his financial dealings. A former business
partner, Steven Hoffenberg, sued him in 2016, claiming that Epstein was the
mastermind behind a $500 million Ponzi scheme that Hoffenberg was
imprisoned for in 1995. Hoffenberg served 18 years for the scam, but he later
dropped the lawsuit against Epstein.
In August, two of Hoffenberg's former investors rekindled the lawsuit against
Epstein, but the case was dropped in October.
Epstein and his associate, British-born socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, were also
accused in a 2015 federal civil suit of organizing underage sex parties on his
private plane, nicknamed "The Lolita Express," and at Epstein's various homes.
Maxwell, who has never been charged with wrongdoing, has denied allegations
made in the lawsuit that she was Epstein's "madam." The suit, filed by victim
Virginia Roberts, was settled in 2017.
Virginia Roberts was working at Mar-a-Lago when she was recruited to be a masseuse to Palm Beach hedge fund
manager Jeffrey Epstein. She was lured into a life of depravity and sexual abuse.
BY EMILY MICHOT II I JULIE K. BROWN II
It was Epstein's contacts with powerful and famous people that first propelled him
into the public spotlight. In 2002, he flew former President Bill Clinton, actor
Kevin Spacey, comedian Chris Tucker and others to South Africa on his private jet
as part of a fact-finding AIDS mission in support of the Clinton Foundation.
But Epstein, a Clinton donor who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to
Democratic candidates and causes, realized that his Democratic connections
weren't going to help him in 2006, when the federal prosecutor was Acosta, a
conservative Republican appointed during the George W. Bush administration.
ENTER KENNETH STARR
Epstein's tactic: hire the most aggressive and politically connected lawyers that his
money could buy.
At the top of his list: Kenneth Starr, a Republican icon because of his pursuit of
Bill Clinton during the Whitewater investigation, which led to the impeachment
(but not conviction) of the president after it was revealed he'd had sex with a
young White House intern. Like Acosta, Starr had worked at the prestigious law
firm Kirkland & Ellis. Epstein also tapped Jay Lefkowitz, also of Kirkland, who
worked as a domestic policy advisor and later as a special envoy to North Korea
during the George W. Bush presidency.

Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr speaks to the San Antonio Bar Association in San Antonio, Friday
afternoon, May 1, 1998. With his own fight over executive privilege raging in secret, Starr today drew parallels
between his plight and Watergate prosecutors. (AP Photo/Eric Gay)
ERIC GAY AP
Epstein also hired Bruce Reinhart, then an assistant U.S. attorney in South
Florida, now a U.S. magistrate. He left the U.S. Attorney's Office on Jan. 1, 2008,
and went to work representing Epstein's employees on Jan. 2, 2008, court records
show. In 2011, Reinhart was named in the Crime Victims' Rights Act lawsuit,
which accused him of violating Justice Department policies by switching sides,
implying that he leveraged inside information about Epstein's investigation to
curry favor with Epstein.
Reinhart, in a sworn declaration attached to the CVRA case, denied the
allegation, saying he did not participate in Epstein's criminal case and "never
learned any confidential, non-public information about the Epstein matter."
The U.S. Attorney's Office has since disputed that, saying in court papers that he
did possess confidential information about the case.
Contacted for this story, Reinhart, in an email, said he never represented Epstein
- only Epstein's pilots; his scheduler, Sarah Kellen; and Nadia Marcinkova,
described by some victims as Epstein's sex slave. Reinhart also pointed out that a
complaint filed against him by victims' lawyer Paul Cassell was dismissed by the
Justice Department.
Bruce E. Reinhart, Member, McDonald Hopkins LLC. (PRNewsFoto/McDonald Hopkins LLC)
PR NEWSWIRE
That same year, 2011, more girls continued to come forward, including Roberts,
who claimed in a British tabloid story that Epstein directed her - while she was
underage by Florida standards - to have sex, not only with him, but with other
powerful men, including his attorney, Alan Dershowitz, and Prince Andrew.
Dershowitz and Andrew denied her claims, but after she filed a sworn affidavit in
federal court in Miami, the ensuing news media firestorm forced Acosta, then
dean of the law school at Florida International University, to explain why he'd
declined to prosecute Epstein.
In a written, public statement on March 20, 2011, Acosta asserted that the deal
he struck with Epstein's lawyers was harsher than it would have been had the case
remained with the state prosecutor, Krischer, who favored charging Epstein with
only a misdemeanor prostitution violation.
Acosta also described what he called a "year-long assault" on prosecutors by
Epstein's "army of legal superstars" who, he said, investigated individual
prosecutors and their families, looking for "personal peccadilloes" to disqualify
them from Epstein's case.
Dershowitz, in an interview, denied that Epstein's lawyers would ever investigate
prosecutors.
Documents nevertheless show that Acosta not only buckled under pressure from
Epstein's lawyers, but he and other prosecutors worked with them to contain the
case, even as the FBI was uncovering evidence of victims and witnesses in other
states, FBI and federal court documents show.
A 5 3-page federal indictment had been prepared in 2007, and subpoenas were
served on several of Epstein's employees, compelling them to testify before a
federal grand jury. The court records reveal that emails began to fly back and
forth between prosecutors and Epstein's legal team. Those emails show that
feder�l prosecutors kept acquiescing to Epstein's demands.
Prosecutors allowed Epstein's lawyers to dictate the terms of each deal that they
drew up, and repeatedly backed down on deadlines, so that the defense
essentially controlled the pace of the negotiations, the emails and letters show.
It's clear, from emails and other records, that prosecutors spent a lot of time
figuring out a way to settle the case with the least amount of scandal. Instead of
charging Epstein with a sex offense, prosecutors considered witness tampering
and obstruction charges, and misdemeanors that would allow Epstein to secretly
plead guilty in Miami instead of in Palm Beach County, where most of the victims
lived, thereby limiting media exposure and making it less likely for victims to
appear at the sentencing.
"I've been spending some quality time with Title 18 [the U.S. criminal code]
looking for misdemeanors," the lead prosecutor, A. Marie Villafana, wrote to
Epstein's lawyers on Sept. 13, 2007, adding that she was trying to find "a factual
basis" for one or more non-sex-related crimes to charge him with.
The email chain shows that prosecutors sometimes communicated with the
defense team using private emails, and that their correspondence referenced
discussions that they wanted to have by phone or in person, so that there would
be no paper trail.
"It's highly unusual and raises suspicions of something unethical happening when
you see emails that say 'call me, I don't want to put this in writing.' There's no
reason to worry about putting something in writing if there's nothing improper or
unethical in the case," said former federal prosecutor Francey Hakes, who
worked in the Justice Department's crimes against children unit.
On Sept. 24, 2007, another agreement was reached, but Epstein still wasn't
happy with it, emails show.
Lefkowitz continued to pressure the U.S. Attorney's Office to keep the agreement
secret, even though under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, prosecutors were
required to inform the victims that a plea deal had been signed.
"We ... object to your sending a letter to the alleged victims," Lefkowitz wrote on
Nov. 28. " ... Any such letter would immediately be leaked to the press, your
actions will only have the effect of injuring Mr. Epstein and promoting spurious
civil litigation directed at him. We also request that if your office believes that it
must send a letter to go to the alleged victims ... it should happen only after Mr.
Epstein has entered his plea.''
,,, __
The girls who were abused by Jeffrey Epstein and the cops who championed their cause remain angry over what
they regard as a gross injustice, while Epstein's employees and those who engineered his non-prosecution
agreement have prospered.
BY MARTA OLIVER CRA VIOTIO IS I EMILY MICHOT IS I JULIE K. BROWN B
By December, Epstein had still not agreed to a date for his plea hearing, and was
technically in violation of the September agreement, which required him to
appear in court by November, Acosta noted in a letter to Kenneth Starr in
December 2007.
"The [U.S. attorneys] who have been negotiating with defense counsel have for
some time complained to me regarding the tactics used by the defense team,"
Acosta wrote. "It appears to them that as soon as resolution is reached on one
issue, defense counsel finds ways to challenge the resolution collaterally .... Some
in our office are deeply concerned that defense counsel will continue to mount
collateral challenges to provisions to the agreement, even after Mr. Epstein has
entered his guilty plea and thus rendered the agreement difficult, if not
impossible, to unwind."
And that's exactly what happened.
Villafana frequently showed her frustration.
"I thought we had worked very well together in resolving this dispute .... I feel
that I bent over backwards to keep in mind the effect that the agreement would
have on Mr. Epstein," Villafana wrote to Epstein attorney Lefkowitz on Dec. 13,
2007.
By then the deal had been signed for two months, and Jeffrey Sloman, Acosta's
top assistant, told Lefkowitz he intended to begin notifying Epstein's victims.
An indignant Lefkowitz wrote to Acosta: "You ... assured me that your office
would not ... contact any of the identified individuals, potential witnesses or
potential civil claimants and their respective counsel in this matter."
As the months went on, with the agreement still in limbo, federal prosecutors
once again began to prepare indictments against Epstein, court records show. The
FBI investigation briefly resumed, and additional witnesses were interviewed in
New York and New Mexico, the records show. In January 2008, several Epstein
victims were sent letters informing them that the FBI investigation was "ongoing"
as negotiations to finalize the plea bargain continued behind the scenes.
Starr finally appealed to the Justice Department in Washington, challenging
federal jurisdiction of the case, but in May 2008, the Justice Department affirmed
Acosta's right to prosecute.
'STILL AFRAID OF EPSTEIN'
In recent court filings, the government was forced to answer questions about its
negotiations, finally admitting in 2013 that federal prosecutors had backed down
under relentless pressure by Epstein's attorneys.
"The government admits that, at least in part as a result of objections lodged by
Epstein's lawyers to victim notifications, the [United States Attorney's Office]
reevaluated its obligations to provide notification to victims and Jane Doe #l was
thus not told that the USAO had entered into a non-prosecution agreement with
Epstein until after it was signed," wrote Assistant U.S. Attorney Dexter Lee.
Said Hakes, the former federal prosecutor: "I have never heard of a case where
federal prosecutors consult with a defense attorney before they send out standard
victim notification letters. To negotiate what the letters would say and whether
they would be sent at all suggest that the victims' rights were violated multiple
times."
Starr's aggressive advocacy for Epstein against allegations of improper sexual
behavior was in stark contrast to the path he took investigating then-President
Clinton. The Starr Report, the summary of his findings in the Whitewater
investigation, which started as a probe of a land deal gone sour and veered into
an investigation of sexual misconduct, savaged the president for his involvement
with White House intern Monica Lewinsky and was the basis for impeachment.
Starr himself would face criticism in 2016 - he stepped down as president of
Baylor University amid allegations that he and other university officials
mishandled sexual assault allegations brought by female students against
members of the school's football team.
The Herald reached out to Starr, through certified letter and through a spokesman
for his current law firm, the Lanier Firm, but did not receive a response for this
story.
Palm Beach police detective Recarey, one of the most highly decorated officers on
the Palm Beach Police Department, called the Epstein case the most troubling of
his 23-year career.
\
"Some of the victims were - and still are - afraid of Epstein," he said as part of
a series of interviews with the Herald earlier this year.
Privately, Reiter and Recarey said, they held onto a hope that Epstein would be
brought to trial someday, but they said that that notion had faded.
"I always hoped that the plea would be thrown out and that these teenage girls,
who were labeled as prostitutes by prosecutors, would get to finally shed that label
and see him go to prison where he belongs," Recarey said.
Recarey died in May after a brief illness. He was 50 years old.
More from the series
1 Ho)V a future Trump Cabinet
memb�r garYe a $erial ;ex aibusar
the deal oi a Hf 2tirn 1e

EXHIBITB
DA's office 'went easy' on sex offender Epstein
By Rebecca Rosenberg and Danika Fears
January 7, 2015 I 2:38am
----------
Jeffrey Epstein
Gregory P. Mango
Jeffrey Epstein may be a convicted pedophile and accused sex- slave master - but that didn't stop him from getting some tender loving
treatment from the Manhattan DA's Office.
Prosectors went to bat for the billionaire pervert at a 2011 legal hearing, asking a judge to cut the filthy- rich felon a break on the severity of
his sex- offender status, according to court documents.
ADA Jennifer Gaffney supported a request by Epstein - who allegedly peddled $15,000-a-night teen "sex slaves" to rich men like Britain's
Prince Andrew - that he only be listed as a Level 1 pervert during a hearing in Manhattan Supreme Court, according to legal transcripts.
The sicko investment magnate has just finished serving 13 months of an 18-month sentence in Florida for soliciting a minor girl for
prostitution. The hearing was to determine what kind of offender status he would have in New York, where he keeps a vacation home.
The city ADA argued that since "there was only an indictment for one victim," Epstein shouldn't have to register as Level 3 - which would
require he travel to New York every 90 days and check in with cops.
Judge Ruth Pickholz was flabbergasted. She couldn't understand why the DA would want to go easy on Epstein, after the New York State
Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended the Level 3 status because there was more than just the one victim for which he
pleaded guilty.
··1 have to tell you, I'm a little overwhelmed because I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this," the judge said at the
hearing.
Despite the DA's arguments, Pickholz slapped Epstein with Level 3 status, which was upheld on appeal.
·'The strong evidence that the offenses against the other victims did occur outweighs any inferences to be drawn from the manner in which
this case was prosecuted in Florida," the New York Court of Appeals said in its ruling.
When asked for comment, the DA's Office referred The Post to court documents stating that the prosecution's position was based "largely
on the mistaken notion" that only the formal charges against Epstein could be factors in the decision.
The jet-setting financier has been making headlines in recent days after Virginia Roberts, 30, claimed he pimped her to Britain's Prince
Andrew.
Prince Andrew has denied the accusations against him.
FILED UNDER JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PRINCE ANDREW, VIRGINIA ROBERTS
Recommended bv
EXHIBITC
METRO
Manhattan DA sided with pedophile billionaire after
botching investigation
By Rebecca Rosenberg, Larry Celona. Susan Edelman and Isabel Vincent
December 1. 2018 I 8:47pm I Updated
Jeffrey Epstein
The Manhattan DA's office once went to bat for billionaire pervert Jeffrey Epstein, after botching a review of his sex crimes and swallowing
his lawyers' claim that "there are no real victims here," records obtained by the Post show.
Assistant DA Jennifer Gaffney, then-deputy chief of Cyrus Vance Jr.'s sex-crimes unit, in January 2011 asked a Manhattan judge to
downgrade Epstein's status in the New York sex-offender registry from the most-dangerous Level 3 to least-restrictive Level 1.
The judge was stunned.
"I have never seen the prosecutor's office do anything like this," Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Ruth Pickholz told Gaffney. ·1 have done
many [cases] much less troubling than this one where (prosecutors) would never make a downward argument like this."
Pressed by the judge, Gaffney admitted that she never spoke to the Florida U.S. Attorney who handled a sprawling sex-crime investigation
into the financier.
"I don't think you did much of an investigation here," Pickholz said. "I am shocked."
Vance's mishandling of the Epstein hearing has come under new scrutiny after a Miami Herald report last week revealed a secret "nonprosecution
agreement" in Florida that buried evidence Epstein had allegedly pimped out 80 girls and young women to his rich and
powerful pals.
The DA's office insists Vance "was not aware" of the hearing until years later and had nothing to do with it.
"Our prosecutor made a mistake," Vance spokesman Danny Frost said of Gaffney.
Gaffney, a prosecutor working in the Harvey Weinstein probe, left the DA's office in September. She declined to comment.
A DA insider said the office was unaware of Epstein's secret plea deal in Florida, and never investigated his sexcapades in NYC.
Some law enforcement sources don't believe Vance had no clue that his office had a sex-offender case involving a Manhattan mogul with
close ties to Democrats.
"This is very unusual," one said. "There is no way Vance didn't know. The question is why - and who asked for the favor."
The FBI found Epstein recruited girls as young as 13, many runaways, from Florida, New Mexico, the Caribbean and New York, and paid
them for nude massages that often led to sex, the Herald reported. Some girls worked for a Manhattan modeling agency and lived in a
nearby apartment owned by Epstein.
But Miami U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta - now President Trump's labor secretary - sealed a 53-page federal indictment that could have
sent Epstein to prison for life, the Herald reported.
Instead, Acosta let Epstein plead guilty to procuring a person under 18 for prostitution. Sentenced to 18 months, he served just 13 - most of
it in his tony Palm Beach office.
Epstein was required to register as a sex offender in New York because one of his many homes is in Manhattan.
In the Jan. 18, 2011 hearing, Gaffney argued the evidence didn't justify the harshest status.
"There is only an indictment for one victim.," she said. "If an offender is not indicted for an offense, it is strong evidence that the offense did
not occur."
Pickholz rejected Gaffney's arguments and gave Epstein the highest sex-offender status - Level 3.
When Epstein appealed, Vance's office admitted it had misread the law.
The appellate court upheld Pickholz, saying Epstein "committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls." and that the victim in
his indictment "was only one of defendant's many victims."
FILED UNDER
BILLIONAIRES, DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, PEDOPHILES, SEX OFFENDERS
Recommended bv
EXHIBITD
From: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Date: Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 5:27 PM
Subject: RE: request
To: Susan Edelman <sedelman@nypost.com>
Hi Sue,
Regarding your first question: pursuant to Civil Rights Law§ 50-b, our office's practice in appellate sex
crimes matters is to file documents under seal. This is not particular to People v. Epstein; it is routine
across our appellate filings. My understanding is that it is also the Appellate Division's (the court's)
practice to maintain such seal.
That being said, I have discussed your second question with our attorneys. If the Post petitions the
court, and the court asks the People for our positon, we will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief.
Thanks.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @ManhattanDA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 6, 2018 9:12 AM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Hi Dan,
Please explain why the DA's office didn't file a redacted brief, but rather covered up all the facts.
If we filed a petition for a redacted brief, would the DA's office fight it or cooperate?
Thank you,
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:45 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Hi Sue - the document was filed under seal. I cannot violate the seal and provide it to you.
(off the record please) You may wish to petition the court, or have the Post's lawyer send our lawyers
something. We've reached the end of me being able to help - it's sealed.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @ManhattanDA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com)
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Right, but the law allows for the redaction of victim names. Where does it say the whole document is
denied?
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 3:02 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Hi Sue - this is prescribed by Civil Rights Law§ 50-b.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @ManhattanDA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com1
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 2:58 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Hi Dan,
So it was a unilateral decision by the DA to seal the document?
There was no hearing or opportunity to object?
Thank you,
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 2:55 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Hi Sue -we do not have a court order; rather, we are bound by the Civil Rights statute cited on the
cover page. Thanks.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @Manhattan DA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1:47 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Thanks,, Is there a specific date?
Do you have a court order sealing the document?
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:44 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
August 2011
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @Manhattan DA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com)
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 1:38 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
P.S. What is the date of this document?
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 1:02 PM Susan Edelman <sedelman@nypost.com> wrote:
Thanks, Danny,
Is there a judge's order sealing this document?
Or is it just stated by the DA's office.
It's unclear on this cover page.
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:55 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Attached, thanks.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @ManhattanDA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com j
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 12:41 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Hi Dan,
It's for my information -- not publication.
Thanks much,
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:38 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Hi Sue - would I be sending the cover page for publication, or for your information? I am happy to send
it to you not-for-publication, but if you intend to publish it, I need to check with our lawyers. Thanks.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @ManhattanDA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com j
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 12:35 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: Re: request
Hi Danny,
Thanks. Can you send me a PDF of the cover page?
Who issued that order?
We always get such court documents -- with the names and ID of victims redacted.
The whole document is not withheld.
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
On Wed, Dec 5, 2018 at 12:28 PM Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov> wrote:
Hi Sue - I've confirmed that the brief is filed under seal. It contains the following header on the cover
page: "Pursuant to Civil Rights Law§ 50-b, the identities of the victims, who are the victims of sex
offenses, shall be confidential, and this document shall not be made available for public inspection."
Accordingly we must decline your request. Thanks.
Danny Frost
Director of Communications
Manhattan District Attorney Cy Vance, Jr.
212-335-9400 // @Manhattan DA
From: Susan Edelman [mailto:sedelman@nypost.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 6:34 PM
To: Frost, Danny <frostd@dany.nyc.gov>
Subject: request
Hi Danny,
Following up on the Epstein case:
Can you send me the DA's appellate brief in the sex-offender registry case?
I understand you may have to redact the names of any victims.
Please let me know as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Sue
Susan Edelman
Reporter
1211 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY, 10036
917-584-7675
sedelman@nypost.com
This email communication and any files transmitted with it contain privileged and confidential
information from the New York County District Attorney's Office and are intended solely for the use of
the individuals or entity to whom it has been addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any dissemination or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received
this email in error, please delete it and notify the sender by return email.
EXHIBITE
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPEILATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT
Tiffi PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
-against-
Respondent,
AFFIRMATION IN RESPONSE
TOMOTION
N.Y. Co. Ind. No. _30129/10
Defendant-Appellant.
Cal. Date: December 31, 2018
KAREN FRIEDMAN AGNIFILO, an attomcy duly admitted to pnctice before the
courts of this State, affinns under penalty of perjury that
1. I am an Assistant District Attoi:ney, of counsel to CYRUS R VANCE, JR.,
District Attomey of New York County, and I submit this affinnation on behalf of the People
in response to a motion filed by non-party movant NYP Holdings, Ine. (the "Post") to
"unseal" the appellate briefs from 2011, pertaining to the adjudication of defendant Jeffrey
E. Epstein as a Level III sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act ("SORA'').
Civil Rights Law § 50-b provides that the identities of the victims of sex offenses must
remain confidential and _that docwnents bearing identifying infonnation should not be made
available for public inspection. Despite those protections, the Post seeks copies of the
-appellate briefs, with the names or initials of Epstein's sex crimes victims redacted, for use in
reporting about the procedural history underlying defendant's SORA adjudication.
2. In order to protect the privacy interests of victims of sex crimes, the plain
lan gua ge of Civil Rights Law § 50-b prohibits production to the public of the appellate briefs,
which would reveal the identities of many of defendant's sex crime victims. To be s1:tte, the
statute provides for a ruu:row exception to the confidentiality requirement, permitting
disclosure, by court order, of information for " go od cause ,, and upon "notice to tQ.e victim.· ..
and the public officer or employee charged with the duty of pro�uting the offense.'' Civil
Rights Law§ 50-b(2)(b). We note that the prosecuting agencies for defendant's underlying
sex crimes are the federal and local prosecutors offices in Florida, where defendant was
char ge d. By all appearances, the Post has yet to furnish the requisite notice to either the
appropriate prosecuting agencies or to the victims themselves. And to the extent that the
Post is unable to furnish notice to the victims, this Office, which was not the prosecuting
agency, is not in a position to do so.
3.. In any event, and in keeping with the People's obligation under Civil Rights
Law § 50-b to protect the privacy of the victims of sex crimes, we cannot agree to the
wholesale production of the People's appellate brief or even to a production of the People's
brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein's victims. 1 However, if this Court is
inclined to grant the Post's motion, we would not oppose producing a copy of the People's
brief, with substantial redactions necessary to protect the identities of the victims but keeping
1
According to the Post's filing, they have contacted defendant's current counsel, who has
reserved the right to oppose the disclosure of defendant's appellate brief.
2
intact those portions of the brief that recount the ptocedutal history of the SORA hearin&
the portion of the brief that is seemingly of interest to the Post
Dated: New York, New Yo.rk
Deccmbet 28, 2018
DMAN AGNIFILO
Assistant · · ct Attomey
(212) 335-9000
cc:
Davis Wright Ttcmaine I.LP
John M. Browning
1251 Avenue of the .Americas, 21st Floor
New York, New Yotk 10020-1104
3
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION: FIRST DEPARTMENT
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
Reepondent,
JEFFR.EY E. EPSTEIN,
-agaim t-
Defendant-Appellant.
AFFIRMATION IN RESPONSE TO NON-PARTY MOTION
N.Y. County Ind. No. 30129/10
Cal Date: December 31, 2018
CYRUS R. VANCE,JR.
DiauictAttomey
New York Couniy
One Hogan Place
New York, New York 10013
(212) 335-9000
Karm FtiedmanAgnifilo
Assistant District Attomey
OfCoumel
EXHIBITF
Browning, Jack
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
Thursday, January 03, 2019 8:14 AM
Browning, Jack; 'Maksim Nemtsev'
Balin, Robert; owlmgw@att.net
RE: Motion to Unseal Epstein Appeal Briefs
[EXTERNAL]
Jack, after consideration of your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain identities, we
take no position on behalf of Mr Epstein. I appreciate your courtesy in providing me with more time to respond given
the holidays. Let me know if this email suffices. Thanks, Marty
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
off - 617 227 3700
fax - 617 338 9538
cell - 617 901 3472
This Electronic Message contains
information from the Law Office of
Martin G. Weinberg, P.C.,
and may be privileged. The
information is intended for the
use of the addressee only. If you
are not the addressee, please note
that any disclosure, copying,
distribution, or use of the
contents of this message is
prohibited.
--- ------- ·-- - �----�--·-·---·- - --- -- . -----,---·-·--- ·-·-----· -- ·----- - . --··--· --- ____ ,. ·- ,., . .. --- ··--·- -----
From: Browning, Jack [mailto:JackBrowning@dwt.com)
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 10:13 AM
To: Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>; 'Maksim Nemtsev' <menemtsev@gmail.com>
Cc: Balin, Robert <robertbalin@dwt.com>
Subject: RE: Motion to Unseal Epstein Appeal Briefs
Marty,
Please find attached a scan of the signed signature page.
Best regards,
Jack
1
_________ ., ___ ,,. ______ ,. ____ - -----··-�~---- ----··-·-·- .. -·-·----- -·-·---·- •----- --·--··"-· - ---·-
From: Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2018 8:55 AM
To: Browning, Jack <JackBrowning@dwt.com>; 'Maksim Nemtsev' <menemtsev@gmail.com>
Cc: Balin, Robert <robertbalin@dwt.com>; owlmgw@att.net
Subject: RE: Motion to Unseal Epstein Appeal Briefs
[EXTERNAL]
Jack, my local counsel in NY (we are filing for pro hac vice) has advised that the Court Clerk may require a signature on
the Stipulaion. Out of an abundance of caution, can you sign and return and we will file today. Thanks, Marty
--- - --- -----·--- --- ---- - --- ·-. - -- - - - -· - -- - -· ...___ ... - -· --- -- ---- ·-- - - .............. ..
- From: Browning, Jack [mailto:JackBrowning@dwt.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 12:19 PM
To: Maksim Nemtsev <menemtsev@gmail.com>
Cc: Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>; Balin, Robert <robertbalin@dwt.com>
Subject: RE: Motion to Unseal Epstein Appeal Briefs
Maksim,
Please find attached a copy of the stipulation with some minor edits, which you can go ahead and file/serve. If you do
ultimately file an opposition, please serve us with copies via email.
Best regards and happy holidays,
Jack
From: Maksim Nemtsev <menemtsev@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2018 10:33 AM
To: Browning, Jack <JackBrowning@dwt.com>
Cc: Martin G. Weinberg <owlmgw@att.net>
Subject: Motion to Unseal Epstein Appeal Briefs
[EXTERNAL]
Hi Jack,
Attached is a draft Stipulation to adjourn the return date to January 7, 20 I 9. Answering papers will be due
January 4 and reply papers will be due January 6.
We are also enlisting the assistance oflocal counsel to sponsor Marty's pro hac vice petition. We will provide
you with copies of the motion papers once they are prepared.
Let me know if you have any questions. Happy Holidays.
Thank you,
Max Nemtsev
20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
(617) 227-3700
(347) 251-4800 (cell)
2
EXHIBITG
•-;i
L
Davis yv'right
• ., Tremaine LLP
21st Floor
1251 Avcn11e of the America
New York, NY 10020-1104
Robert D. Balla
(212) 489-8230 tel
(212) "89-8340 fax
robbtlin@dwt.com
January 4, 2019
VIA HAND DELI V ERY
Clerk of Court
Supreme Court of the State of New York
Appellate Division, First Department
27 Madison Avenue
New York, NY 10010
Re:
Motion to Unseal Briefs (with Names of Victims Redacted) in People v. Epstein, N.Y.
Co. Index No. 30129/10 (Appellate Division No. 6081)
Dear Sir or Madam:
We write on behalf of non-party movant NYP Holdings, Inc., publisher of the New York
Post (the "Post''), to withdraw the motion filed by the Post on December 21, 2018 seeking an
order to unseal the briefs submitted by the parties in the above-captioned appeal (with the names
of victims redacted). Pursuant to NYCRR § 1250.2, we write to inform the Court that the Post
hereby withdraws its pending motion without prejudice and expressly reserves the right to refile
the motion. See NYCRR § 1250.2(a) ("Withdrawal of Motion. A moving party may file a
written request to withdraw a motion at any time prior to its detennination").
The Post intends to refile its motion for an order unsealing the briefs (with appropriate
redactions), but has withdrawn its pending motion in response to an affidavit submitted by the
office of the Manhattan District Attorney on December 28, 2018. That affidavit asserts that the
Post was required, but failed, to provide notice of the unsealing motion to "prosecutor's offices
in Florida" before proceeding with its motion. While the Post firmly believes that it satisfied its
obligations by serving the Manhattan District Attorney's office with a copy of its unsealing
motion, it wishes to avoid and moot any dispute with the District Attorney's office over whether
the notice requirements of the relevant statute were met. Accordingly, the Post will refile its
motion to unseal next week and, at that time, will serve its motion papers on the relevant Florida
prosecutors, as well as on the parties to the appeal.
4844-9920Sv. l 3930033-000135
Anchorage I Bellevue I Los Angeles I New York
Portland I San Francisco I Seattle I Washington. 0.C
January 4, 2019
Page2
Respectfully yours,
Davis Wright Tremaine LLP
�J/4/
Robert D. Balin
cc:
Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Aanifino (by email)
Martin 0. Weinberg. Esq. (by email)
4l44-9925Y. l 3930033-000135
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
APPELLATE DIVISION - FIRST DEPARTMENT
----------------- -- -••••.• - •. - . - . --·--. -• ----. -••• -- --- -...... X
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK,
App. Div. No. 6081
- against -
JEFFREY E. EPSTEIN,
Respondent,
Defendant-Appellant.
On Appeal from New York Supreme Court,
New York County, Index No. 30129/10
(Pickholz, J.)
X
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
OF MOTION BY NYP HOLDINGS, INC TO UNSEAL APPELLATE BRIEFS
DA VIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
Robert D. Balin
John M. Browning
1251 A venue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, New York 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 603-6410
Counsel for Non-Party Movant NYP
Holdings, Inc.
48 I l-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .................................................................................................... 1
FACTUAL BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................... 3
A. Epstein's Conviction for Sex Crimes and Designation as a Level Three Sex
Offender .................................................................................................................. 3
B. The Appeal .............................................................................................................. 4
C. Media Interest in New York and Florida Prosecutors' Lenient Handling of
Epstein's Case ......................................................................................................... 5
D. The Post's Efforts to Obtain the Appellate Briefing Filed with the First
Department .............................................................................................................. 8
ARGUMENT 11
I. THE POST HAS THE RIGHT TO MOVE THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER
UNSEALING THE APPELLATE BRIEFING ................................................................ 11
II. GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO UNSEAL THE APPELLATE BRIEFS ............................ 12
CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 17
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
Cases
Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC,
710 F.2d 1165 (6th Cir. 1983) ................................................................................................. 14
Daily News, L.P. v. Wiley,
126 A.D.3d 511, 6 N.Y.S.3d 19 (1st Dep't 2015) .................................................................. .11
Danco Labs., Ltd v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd.,
274 A.D.2d 1, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419 (1st Dep't 2000) .......................................................... .13, 15
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court,
457 U.S. 596 (1982) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14
In re Application of National Broad Co.,
635 F.2d 945 (2d Cir. 1980) ............................................................................................... 13, 15
In re Associated Press v. Bell,
70 N.Y.2d 32,517 N.Y.S.2d 444 (1987) ................................................................................. 13
In re Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Co rp . v. Moynihan,
125 A.D.2d 34,512 N.Y.S.2d 266 (3d Dep't 1987), aff'd on other grounds,
71 N.Y.2d 263,525 N.Y.S.2d 24 (1988) ................................................................................. 11
In re Herald Co. v. Weisenberg,
59 N.Y.2d 378,465 N.Y.S.2d 862 (1983) ............................................................................... 1 l
Mancheski v. Gabelli G rp . Capital Partners,
39 A.D.3d 499, 835 N.Y.S.2d 595 (2d Dep't 2007) ................................................................ 11
Maxim, Inc. v. Feifer,
145 A.DJd 516, 43 N.Y.S.3d 313 (1st Dep't 2016) ........................................................ .11, 16
N. Y. Times Co. v. United States,
403 U.S. 713 (1971) ................................................................................................................. 13
Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc.,
435 U.S. 589 (1978) ................................................................................................................. 13
People v. Burton,
189 A.D.2d 532,597 N.Y.S.2d 488 (3d Dep't 1993) ........................................................ 13, 16
People v. Epstein,
89 A.D.3d 570,933 N.Y.S.2d 239 (1st Dep't 2011) ....................................................... passim
48 l 1-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
11
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
464 U.S. 501 (1984) ................................................................................................................. 14
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court,
478 U.S. l (1986) ..................................................................................................................... 13
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia,
448 U.S. 555 (1980) ........................................................................................................... 13, 14
Constitutions
U.S. Const. amend. I ...................................................................................................................... 13
N.Y. State Const. art. I,§ 8 ............................................................................................................ 13
Statutes
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b ................................................................................................. passim
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b(l) ...................................................................................................... 4
N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b(2) ............................................................................................ 1, 4, 11
Other Authorities
22 NYCRR § 1250.l(e)(3) .................................................................................................. .1, 11, 12
Samuel Goldsmith, Jeffrey Epstein Pleads Guilty to Prostitution Charges, N.Y.
POST (June 30, 2008), available at https://nypost.com/2008/06/30/jeffreyepstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitution-charges/
........................................................................... 6
Jennie Suk Gersen, Why Didn't the Manhattan DA Prosecute the Trumps or
Harvey Weinstein, NEW YORKER (Oct. 13, 2017) available at
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrusvance-prosecute-the-trumps-or-harvey-weinstein
................................................................... 13
48 I 1-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
iii
Non-party movant NYP Holdings, Inc., publisher of the New York Post (the "Post"),
respectfully submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion, filed pursuant to 22
NYCRR § 1250.l(e)(3) and N.Y. Civil Rights Law§ 50-b(2)(b), for an order unsealing the briefs
filed by the parties in the above-captioned appeal (the "Appeal") with the names of victims of
sex crimes redacted.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
The Post seeks to unseal court documents that will shed light on why the Manhattan
District Attorney's Office initially sought lenient treatment of billionaire financier and convicted
pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. In 2008, Epstein pled guilty to soliciting prostitution from a minor,
but there has been suspicion since that time - voiced by members of the judiciary and the press
alike - that prosecutors gave Epstein preferential treatment because of his wealth and his
political connections to powerful men like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton, and Prince Andrew. The
handling of criminal proceedings against Epstein by federal prosecutors in Florida and thereafter
by the Manhattan District Attorney's office has come under renewed scrutiny after the Miami
Herald published a series of investigative articles beginning November 28, 2018, including an
article reporting recently that "prosecutors worked to cut him a break" despite strong evidence
that he had abused 80 girls and young women.
As part of its own news reporting on the New York proceedings against Epstein, the Post
seeks to unseal the briefs filed in this Appeal, in which this Court held that Epstein had to
register as a level three sex offender in New York, which is the category reserved for highest-risk
offenders. See People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d 239,240 (1st Dep't 2011).
During the Appeal, Epstein argued that his sex offender status should be downgraded to a lower
level while the District Attorney's Office argued that the level-three designation was appropriate.
481 l•3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
The District Attorney's position on appeal, however, was in stark contrast to what it argued in
proceedings before the lower court, which was that Epstein "should be adjudicated a level one
offender" (i.e., lowest risk) in spite of the damning evidence establishing that "defendant
committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls." Id. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at
240. The public has the right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney's Office switched its
legal position on appeal and what justifications it advanced in its brief to explain its initial
request for lenient treatment of Epstein. Similarly, the briefing submitted by Epstein, which
confronted the District Attorney's arguments on appeal, may shed additional light on why the
District Attorney changed course on appeal. Despite the obvious public interest in knowing this
information, the briefs were filed wholly under seal pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law
section 50-b - which protects the anonymity of sex abuse victims - and not a single word of
either party's briefs is available to the public.
Since the District Attorney's Office has made it clear that it will not release any portion
of any of the appellate briefs filed in this action without clear instructions from this Court, the
Post respectfully requests an order unsealing the briefs and directing the District Attorney to
provide the Post with copies redacted only to the extent necessary to preserve the anonymity of
victims. As a threshold matter, the Rules of this Court and the common law both guarantee the
Post's right to move this Court for an order unsealing court documents (POINT I, supra). And
the Post easily demonstrates the "good cause" required to overcome sealing of documents under
section 50-b. Simply put, the presumption of openness that governs judicial proceedings in this
State is at its zenith because the documents sought by the Post are highly relevant to allegations
of prosecutorial missteps and favoritism by the office of the District Attorney in a case involving
a powerful sex offender (POINT II, supra). The Post is mindful, however, of the importance of
481 l-3721-9459vJ 3930033-000039
maintaining anonymity for the victims of sexual assault and respectfully requests that this Court
also direct the District Attorney's Office to redact the names of any victims before serving the
Post with copies of the redacted appellate briefs. The Post further requests that this Court order
the District Attorney's Office to provide the Post with copies of the redacted briefs within seven
days of entry of its order granting this motion.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Epstein's Conviction for Sex Crimes and Designation as a Level Three Sex Offender
In June 2008, a Florida Court sentenced Jeffrey Epstein to eighteen months in prison after
he pleaded guilty to soliciting prostitution from a fourteen-year-old girl. Affirmation of John M.
Browning dated December 21, 2018 ("Browning Aff."), Ex. A.
After serving thirteen months of his sentence, Epstein was released and required to
register as a sex offender in New York, where he owned property and sought to reside. Id. Ex.
B. The New York State Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders ("NYBSO") recommended that
Epstein be designated a level three sex offender - which is the level reserved for the most
dangerous sexual predators - because investigators in Florida had found compelling evidence
that Epstein had abused scores of underage girls, despite only pleading guilty to solicitation of a
single minor. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d at 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240.
Remarkably, New York Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Gaffney ignored the NYBSO
recommendation and asked the trial court tasked with deciding Epstein's sex-offender status to
designate him as a level one offender only, which is the least-restrictive category possible and is
typically applied to offenders who pose the lowest risk of committing further crimes. Id. ADA
Gaffney argued that, since "there was only an indictment for one victim," Epstein should not be
placed under the heavy scrutiny required for the most dangerous class of abusers. Id. Ex. B. For
48l l-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
,..
their part, Epstein's lawyers argued that the lowest designation should be applied because "there
are no real victims here." Id. Ex. C.
In January 2011, the judge presiding over the sex-offender registration proceedings,
Justice Ruth Pickholz, rejected ADA Gaffney's arguments and designated Epstein as a level
three sex offender. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d at 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240. At a hearing preceding her
ruling, Justice Pickholz told the Assistant District Attorney that she had "never seen the
prosecutor's office do anything like this" and further stated that she had "done many [cases]
much less troubling than this one where [prosecutors] would never make a downward argument
like this." Id. Ex. B. When ADA Gaffney was questioned about whether she knew Epstein had
sexually abused other minors, Gaffney admitted that she had never spoken to the federal
investigators in Florida who had reached the conclusion that Epstein was a serial abuser of
underage girls. Id. Ex. C.
B. The Appeal
Epstein subsequently commenced this Appeal, seeking to overturn the trial court's ruling
that he is a level three sex offender. The appellate briefs submitted by Epstein and the
Manhattan District Attorney were filed under seal, pursuant to New York Civil Rights Law
section 50-b. Id. ,i 7. That statute protects the anonymity "of any victim of a sex offense" by
requiring any "court file ... which tends to identify such a victim" to be filed under seal. N.Y.
Civ. Rights Law § 50-b(l ). The statute further provides, however, that court documents filed
under seal shall be disclosed if a movant "demonstrates to the satisfaction of the court that good
cause exists for disclosure to that person." Id. § 50-b(2)(b).
In a decision filed on the public docket (the "Decision"), this Court affirmed Epstein's
level three offender status because the lower "court properly relied on highly reliable proof of
criminal conduct for which defendant was neither indicted nor convicted." Epstein, 89 A.D.3d at
481 l-3721-9459v 3 3930033-000039
4
570, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240. Specifically, the "evidence ... established that [Epstein] committed
multiple offenses against a series of underage girls," who "were brought to [Epstein's] home to
provide 'massages' that led to very serious sex crimes." Id. at 570-71, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 240.
_
Although the Manhattan District Attorney's briefing remains under seal, the Decision
indicates that "the People [took] a different position on appeal from the position they took before
the hearing court." Id. at 571, 933 N.Y.S.2d at 241. This Court did not, however, unseal any of
the appeal briefs or provide a detailed summary of the parties' respective arguments. The public
and the press are thus left in the dark as to what exactly the District Attorney's Office and
Epstein wrote in their respective appeal briefs. It appears that the District Attorney's Office may
have taken the position that ADA Gaffney had "mistakenly conceded [before the lower court]
that the conduct for which defendant was not indicted should not be considered, and that
defendant should be adjudicated a level one offender." Id. at 572,933 N.Y.S.2d at 241. The
Decision also states that this Court rejected Epstein's argument that the District Attorney "should
be estopped " from changing position on appeal and also rejected Epstein's "remaining claims " as
being "improperly raised for the first time on appeal." Id. The public has the right to know more
than these sketchy details, however, particularly when the arguments advanced by the parties on
appeal clearly discuss the decision taken by the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to abruptly
change its earlier position that Epstein was deserving of lenient treatment.
C. Media Interest in New York and Florida Prosecutors' Lenient Handling of Epstein's
Case
The handling of Epstein's prosecution in Florida and the subsequent sex offender
registration proceeding against in him New York have both been the subject of legitimate public
interest and intense controversy. In the Florida proceedings, the prosecutors were criticized for
allowing Epstein to enter into a seemingly favorable plea deal. For instance, as the Post reported
48 \ l-372 l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
at the time, the Florida judge sentencing Epstein "was critical of two of the deal's conditions,
indicating she thought he was getting special treatment by being allowed private counselling for
his sex offender treatment and to serve time in county jail instead of state prison." Samuel
Goldsmith, Jeffrey Epstein Pleads Guilty to Prostitution Charges, N.Y. POST (June 30, 2008),
available at https ://nypost.com/2008/06/30/j effrey-epstein-pleads-guilty-to-prostitu ti on-charges/.
Another serious concern was that Epstein's status as a billionaire investor with powerful
connections - including close relationships with Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, and Prince Andrew
- may have influenced prosecutors to give Epstein unduly favorable treatment and to tum a blind
eye to the extent of his sexual abuse of minors. Id.
There has also been critical reporting on how the Manhattan District Attorney's Office
handled Epstein's sex offender registration hearings in New Yark. After the Post obtained
copies of the transcript of the status hearing before Justice Pickholz, it published an article on
January 7, 2015, entitled "DA's office 'went easy' on sex offender Epstein." Id. Ex. B. In that
article, the Post reported that "Prosecutors went to bat for the billionaire pervert at a 2011 legal
hearing, asking a judge to cut the filthy-rich felon a break on the severity of his sex-offender
status .... " Id. In addition to reporting the contents of the hearing transcript, Post reporters also
sought to discover why the District Attorney initially sought lenient treatment for Epstein and, as
part of its investigation, reached out for comment from the District Attorney's Office. As the
article reported, the spokesman for the District Attorney did not give a detailed response on the
record but referred the Post instead to the portion of the Decision stating "that the prosecution's
position was based 'largely on the mistaken notion' that only the formal charges against Epstein
could be factors in the decision." Id. The Post was unable to obtain copies of the briefs filed
4811-372 l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
with the First Department- which would provide a more fulsome explanation of the District
Attorney's position - because those documents remained under seal.
The prosecution of Epstein has remained in the news and was recently the subject of a
wide-ranging mvestigation by the Miami Herald, which was published on November 28, 2018.
Id. Ex. A. One of several in-depth feature articles published by the Miami Herald was entitled
"Cops worked to put serial sex abuser in prison. Prosecutors worked to cut him a break." Id. In
that article, the Miami Herald reported that investigators uncovered evidence that Epstein had
abused "over 100 middle school and high school aged girls," but "despite ample physical
evidence and multiple witnesses corroborating the girls' stories, federal prosecutors and
Epstein's lawyers quietly put together a remarkable deal for Epstein." Id. Epstein agreed to
plead guilty to soliciting an underage prostitute "in state court, and in exchange, he and his
accomplices received immunity from federal sex-trafficking charges that could have sent him to
prison for life. Id. More troubling still, Epstein's case file was sealed- including a detailed
criminal complaint- so that "no one ... could know the full scope of Epstein's crimes and who
else was involved." Id.
The Miami Herald's reporting has also had serious political ramifications. As the Miami
Herald has reported, "[t]he U.S. attorney in Miami, Alexander Acosta, was personally involved
in the negotiations" back in and around 2008. Id. Ex. C. Acosta subsequently became "a
member of President Donald Trump's cabinet" and currently serves as the Secretary of Labor.
Id. Since the Miami Herald published its expose, some members of Congress have demanded an
investigation into what led to the slap-on-the-wrist punishment for Jeffrey Epstein. See, e.g.,
Anthony Man, Florida Democrats want investigation into Trump cabinet member's role in
handling Epstein case, SOUTH FLORIDA SUN SENTINEL (Dec. 4, 2018) available at
48 I I-372 l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/f1-ne-jeffrey-epstein-alex-acosta-investigation-
20181204-story .html.
The Post has also persisted with its own investigation into whether the Manhattan District
Attorney's Office was unduly lenient when it advocated in favor of registering Epstein as a level
one sex offender. On December 1, 2018, the Post published an article entitled "Manhattan DA
sided with pedophile billionaire after botching investigation." Id. Ex. C. Following up on its
prior reporting, the Post reported Justice Pickholz's denial of ADA Gaflhey's efforts to register
Epstein as a level one offender and then asked the District Attorney's Office to account for the
"mishandling of the Epstein hearing." Id. In response to questions from the Post, the District
Attorney's Office insisted that ADA Gaffney simply "made a mistake." Id. A spokesman also
claimed that Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance "'was not aware' of the hearing until
years later and had nothing to do with it." Id. But, as the Post also reported, "[s]ome law
enforcement sources don't believe Vance had no clue that his office had a sex-offender case
involving a Manhattan mogul with close ties to Democrats." Id.
Unsealing of the First Department appeal briefs in this case is crucial so that the public
and the press may more fully understand why Epstein was initially offered level one offender
status despite the overwhelming evidence that he was a serial sexual abuser of children.
D. The Post's Efforts to Obtain the Appellate Briefing Filed with the First Department
On December 4, 2018, Post reporter Sue Edelman contacted the Director of
Communications for District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. and requested a copy of the appellate
brief filed by the District Attorney's Office. Id. 116-8. In making this request, Edelman
specifically stated that the District Attorney's Office could redact the names of any victims of
sexual abuse before forwarding the brief. Id. Edelman's request was denied, however, because
the District Attorney's Office has taken the position that the brief was filed under seal in its
481 l-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
8
entirety pursuant to N.Y. Civil Rights Law section 50-b and could not be released- even with
the names of victims redacted - without an order from this Court. Id. Nonetheless, the District
Attorney's Office stated in an email that it would "not oppose" the Post's motion requesting that
a redacted brief be produced. Id. Ex. D.
Counsel for the Post also contacted counsel for Epstein to ascertain his position on the
disclosure of the appellate briefs. Id. On December 20, 2018, Mr. Epstein's lawyer stated that
he would not take a position until he had an opportunity to review the brief and reserved his right
to oppose. Counsel for Epstein later informed counsel for the Post that "after consideration of
your request for the unsealing of the appellate briefs with redactions of certain identities, we take
no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein." Id. Ex. F.
On December 21, 2019, the Post moved this Court for an order unsealing the appellate
briefs and directing the Manhattan District Attorney's Office to produce copies of the briefs with
the names of victims redacted (the "December 21 Motion"). On January 2, 2019, counsel for the
Post received an affirmation signed by Assistant District Attorney Karen Friedman Agnifilo,
dated December 28, 2018, which opposed the December 21 Motion. After telling the Post that it
"will not oppose the petition for a redacted brief," the District Attorney's Office argued that the
December 21 Motion should be denied on two grounds. First, the District Attorney's office
faulted the Post for supposedly failing to "furnish the requisite notice" to "the prosecuting
agencies for defendant's underlying sex crimes," as required by section 50-b of the New York
Civil Rights Act. Id. Ex. E ,i 2. According to the Manhattan District Attorney, the Post should
have notified "the federal and local prosecutor's offices in Florida, where defendant was
charged" (and presumably not the Manhattan District Attorney's Office). 1
1
The Post firmly disputes the District Attorney's contention -which is not supported by any authority- that section
50-b requires the Post to serve any prosecutor who touched Epstein's case in Florida in order to unseal documents
48! l-372!-9459v.3 3930033-000039
Second, Assistant District Attorney Friedman Agnifilo objected to unsealing any portion
of the appellate briefs and wrote that "we cannot agree ... even to a production of the people's
brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein's victims." Id. ,i 3. She further noted,
however, that "if this Court is inclined to grant the Post's motion, we would not oppose
producing a copy of the People's brief, with substantial redactions necessary to protect the
identities of the victims but keeping intact those portions of the brief that recount the procedural
history of the SORA hearing." Id.
Although the Post does not agree that section 50-b requires it to notify Florida
prosecutors of its intention to move this Court to unseal briefs filed by the Manhattan District
Attorney in a New York sex offenders proceeding, it nonetheless voluntarily withdrew the
December 21 Motion on January 4, 2019 to moot the issue and bypass an easily avoidable
procedural dispute. Counsel for the Post has contacted the Palm Beach State Attorney's office
and the lJ_nited States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (collectively, the
"Florida Prosecutors") to apprise them of its intention to refile this motion to unseal the appellate
briefs with the names of victims redacted. Id. ,i,i 1 7-18. The Post will also serve the Florida
Prosecutors with copies of this motion.
Having mooted the procedural objection raised by the Manhattan District Attorney, the
Post now refiles its motion respectfully requesting an order unsealing the appellate briefs and
directing the District Attorney's Office to provide the Post with copies - with the names of
victims redacted - within seven days of the entry of its order.
filed by New York prosecutors in a New York court as part of proceedings to register Epstein as a sex-offender in
New York State. The statute requires a movant to furnish notice to "the public officer ... with the duty of
prosecuting the offense." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law §50-b. Here, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office had "the
duty of prosecuting the offense" on behalf of the People of New York - i.e., the sex-offender registration
proceedings against Epstein in this State - and there is no question that the Post provided the Manhattan District
Attorney with adequate notice of the December 21 Motion.
48 l l-372 l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
IO
ARGUMENT
Despite the Manhattan District Attorney's apparent opposition to releasing any of portion
of the appellate briefs, good cause exists to unseal briefs with victims' names redacted because
the handling of Epstein's designation as a sex offender by New York prosecutors- including the
appellate arguments regarding that designation - are of paramount public concern and should be
open to public scrutiny.
I. THE POST HAS THE RIGHT TO MOVE THIS COURT FOR AN ORDER
UNSEALING THE APPELLATE BRIEFING
As a threshold matter, the Practice Rules of this Court permit non-parties (like the Post)
to submit "[a]pplications for sealing and unsealing documents ... by motion." 22 NYCRR
§ 1250.l(e)(3). The Post's right to petition this Court for an order unsealing the appellate briefs
is further buttressed by the rule that "affected members of the media should be given the
opportunity to be heard" before a Court takes the drastic step of sealing court proceedings, filings
or dockets. In re Capital Newspapers Div. of Hearst Corp. v. Moynihan, 125 A.D.2d 34, 38,512
N.Y.S.2d 266,269 (3d Dep't 1987), aff'd on other grounds, 71 N.Y.2d 263,525 N.Y.S.2d 24
(1988). See also Mancheski v. Gabe/Ii Grp. Capital Partners, 39 A.D.3d 499,501,835
N.Y.S.2d 595, 597 (2d Dep't 2007) ("[P]rior to issuance of an order to seal judicial documents,
the court is obligated, where possible, to afford news media an opportunity to be heard.") (citing
In re Herald Co. v. Weisenberg, 59 N.Y.2d 378,383,465 N.Y.S.2d 862, 864 (1983)); Maxim,
Inc. v. Feifer, 145 A.D.3d 516, 43 N.Y.S.3d 313 (1st Dep't 2016) (reversing order denying
motion of press entities to intervene for purpose of seeking access to filed motion papers and
other court records).
In addition to guaranteeing the Post's right to move this Court to unseal documents, New
York law also requires this Court to make "specific findings to support its determination" before
481 l-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
11
limiting public access to judicial records or proceedings. Daily News, L.P. v. Wiley, 126 A.D.3d
511,515, 6 N.Y.S.3d 19, 24 (1st Dep't 2015) (before sealing records, courts "must adhere
strictly to the procedures set forth in the controlling case law including affording a full
opportunity by any interested members of the press to be heard, and making specific findings to
support its determination .... [T]rial court[s] ... cannot ... seal evidence and transcripts
merely because the parties are consenting to same and the case has obtained notoriety.").
Therefore, in the unlikely event that this Court declines to grant the Post's motion to unseal,
either in part or in toto, the Post respectfully requests that this Court issue a written order setting
forth the grounds for its decision.
II.
GOOD CAUSE EXISTS TO UNSEAL THE APPELLATE BRIEFS
The appellate briefs should be disclosed because they are highly relevant to the public's
understanding of whether the Office of the Manhattan District Attorney-whose fundamental
mission is to protect the people of this State - initially showed undue deference to a dangerous
pedophile, who is unusually rich and well-connected.
New York Civil Rights Law section 50-b permits courts to disclose court documents
relating to the commission of a sexual offense whenever a showing is made that "good cause
exists for disclosure." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b. See also 22 NYCCR § 1250.l(e)(3)
(permitting the "unsealing [of] court records ... upon good cause shown "). Good cause clearly
exists for disclosing the appellate briefs because they contain a full explanation for why the
District Attorney's Office argued before the lower court that Epstein should be registered as a
level one sex offender before changing position on appeal. See Epstein, 89 A.O. at 571, 933
N.Y.S.2d at 241. The appellate briefs may also shed light on the extent of"the evidence ... that
[Epstein] committed multiple offenses against a series of underage girls," which the District
48 I 1-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
12
Attorney's Office apparently disregarded or was not aware of in the proceedings before the lower
court. Id.
Not only are the appellate briefs subject to the strong presumption of openness that
applies to all judicial documents but there is also an intense public interest in disclosing these
specific documents because they will shed light on why the District Attorney's Office initially
took the controversial decision to argue in favor of lenient treatment ofEpstein. 2 As Justice
Burger wrote, "[p ]eople in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but
it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing." Richmond
Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 572 (1980). "Only a free and unrestrained press can
effectively expose deception in government. And paramount among the responsibilities of a free
press is the duty to prevent any part of the government from deceiving the people ...." N.Y.
Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713, 717 (1971) (Black, J. concurring). In short, the
appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the Post can inform the public about the decisions
taken by the District Attorney's Office with respect to Epstein so that the public can decide
whether there was anything careless or improper about those decisions.
The need for transparency and public understanding of why the District Attorney's Office
handled the Epstein case the way it did is heightened by the fact that District Attorney Vance has
faced criticism over claims that his office gives favorable treatment to rich and powerful men
2
The presumption ofopenness is grounded in the U.S. and New York Constitutions as well as deeply-entrenched
common law rules that govern this Court. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I,
section 8 of the New York State Constitution both recognize the presumptive right of the public and press to access
and inspect court records. Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. I (1986); Globe Newspaper Co. v.
Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); In re Associated Press v. Bell, 70 N.Y.2d 32,517 N.Y.S.2d 444 {1987). In
addition to being well established under the federal and state constitutions, the right of access to court records "is
also firmly grounded in common law principles." Danco Labs., Ltd v. Chem. Works of Gideon Richter, Ltd., 274
A.D.2d 1, 6, 711 N.Y.S.2d 419,423 (1st Dep't 2000)(citing inter alia Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S.
589, 597 {1978)). See also People v. Burton, 189 A.D.2d 532, 535-36, 597 N.Y.S.2d 488, 491-92 (3d Dep't 1993)
("a common-law presumption" favors public access to court records); In re Application of National Broad. Co., 635
F.2d 945, 949 (2d Cir. 1980) ("[T]he common law right to inspect and copy judicial records is beyond dispute.")
( citation omitted).
4811-372 l-9459v. 3 393003 3-000039
13
accused of sexual abuse. As the New Yorker reported, DA Vance declined to charge Harvey
Weinstein with a sex crime in 2015 even though investigators collected ample evidence that he
had groped an actress without consent. See Jennie Suk Gersen, Why Didn't the Manhattan DA
Prosecute the Trumps or Harvey Weinstein, NEW YORKER (Oct. 13, 2017) available at
https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-didnt-manhattan-da-cyrus-vance-prosecutethe-trumps-or-harvey-weinstein.
Even after the emergence of the #Me Too movement and the
indictment of Harvey Weinstein on rape charges, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office has
continued to face criticism for failing to prosecute the Weinstein case aggressively enough. Id.
District Attorney Vance is an elected official who wields an immense amount of discretion over
prosecutions. The people of New York have the right to scrutinize how his office treated this
case involving a rich and well-connected sex offender, especially in light of allegations that other
notable sexual predators have benefitted from the apparent deference of prosecutors. To put it
bluntly, the appellate briefs should be released immediately to avoid any impression of
impropriety caused by continued secrecy.
There is also a strong interest in disclosing the appellate briefs to enable the public to
review for itself the arguments that led this Court to issue the Decision affirming Epstein's status
as a level three sex offender. By ensuring public access to the courts and enabling public
discussion of the functioning of the judiciary, the news media help "the public to participate in
and serve as a check upon the judicial process - an essential component in our structure of selfgovernment."
Globe Newspaper Co., 457 U.S. at 606. As courts have recognized time and
again, "[w]ithout access to the proceedings, the public cannot analyze and critique the reasoning
of the court." Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. FTC, 710 F.2d 1165, 1178 (6th Cir. 1983).
Thus, "[ o ]penness ... enhances both the basic fairness of[ a] trial and the appearance of fairness
481 l-372 l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
14
so essential to public confidence in the system." Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464
U.S. 501, 508 (1984) (citing Richmond Newspapers, 448 U.S. 569-71). For this reason, the
appellate briefs should be unsealed so that the public has the benefit of seeing the very
statements and arguments that formed the basis of this Court's Decision. It is especially
important to provide a transparent view into these judicial proceedings because suspicions have
already been raised about how the District Attorney's Office handled Epstein's case.
When, as here, "issues of major public importance are involved, the interests of the
public as well as the press in access to court records 'weigh heavily' in favor of release." Danco,
274 A.D.2d at 8, 711 N.Y.S.2d at 425 (citation omitted). This constitutional presumption of
open access to court records requires "the most compelling circumstances" to justify any
restriction upon that right. In re Application of Nat 'I Broa d . Co., 635 F .2d at 952. Here, it is
impossible to conceive of any circumstances that might justify wholesale sealing of relevant
court documents that are necessary to understand how prosecutors and this Court handled a
matter of such intense public concern.
The interest of Epstein's victims to remain anonymous can be satisfied by directing the
District Attorney's Office to redact the names of victims before disclosing the appellate briefs.
To be clear, the Post has no interest in identifying victims of sexual assault who wish to remain
anonymous. It does, however, have a right to know why the Manhattan District Attorney
abruptly changed position after initially arguing that Epstein should be treated leniently. The
District Attorney's Office has indicated that it "would not oppose producing a copy of the
People's brief ... keeping intact those portions of the brief that recount the procedural history of
the SORA hearing, the portion of the brief that is seemingly of interest to the Post." Browning
Aff. Ex. E. With all due respect to the District Attorney, the Post is simply not in a position to
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
15
evaluate whether the proposed redactions are reasonable. Because the Post cannot review any
part of the briefs, it is impossible for the Post to know whether the information it seeks is in the
procedural history section of the People's brief or in other parts of the briefing filed in the
Appeal. Moreover, courts must order narrow redactions where possible to avoid overbroad
sealing. See, e.g., Burton, 189 A.D.2d at 535-36, 597 N.Y.S.2d at 491 (requiring courts to
"consider less drastic alternatives to sealing the records which would adequately serve the
competing interests"); Maxim, Inc., 145 A.D.3d at 518, 43 N.Y.S.3d at 316 ("We recognize that
it may be easier for the parties and the motion court to seal an entire court record, rather than
make a determination on a document by document basis about sealing, but administrative
convenience is not a compelling reason to justify sealing."). In keeping with this State's strong
preference against wholesale sealing of documents, section 50-b expressly permits this Court to
release judicial documents after ordering redactions "as it deems necessary .. . to preserve the
confidentiality of the identity of the victim." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b. Since the only
information protected by the statute is identity of Epstein's victims, the Post respectfully requests
an order directing the District Attorney to redact only the names of Epstein's victims. 3
Since the Post does not seek the names of victims of sexual abuse and agrees that these
names should be redacted before the appellate briefs are disclosed, there should be no need under
the statute to provide notice "to the victim or other person legally responsible for the care of the
victim." N.Y. Civ. Rights Law§ 50-b(2). But to the extent such notice is necessary, the Post is
unable to notify any of the victims on its own because it has no knowledge of which victims (if
any) may be identified in the requested documents. If the statute requires victims to be notified
3
Without the benefit of reviewing the appellate briefs, the Post is not in a position to evaluate whether the briefs
contain other information that might identify Epstein's victims, such as home addresses. While the Post would not
object to the District Attorney's Office making good faith redactions of genuinely identifying information, these
redactions should be narrowly tailored and no more expansive than is necessary to protect the victims' identities.
48l l-372l-9459v.3 3930033-000039
16
even if their names will not be disclosed, the Post respectfully submits that either the Manhattan
District Attorney or the Florida Prosecutors should provide notice promptly. To require the Post
to notify victims itself - without any ability to discover who those victims are - would be an
absurd result that defeats the purpose of the unsealing provision of section 50-b, which allows
"any person" to file an application requesting that infonnation be unsealed for "good cause.''4
In sum, the strong presumption of openness that governs New York courts compels the
conclusion that the appellate briefs in this action must be unsealed (with the names of any
victims of a sexual offense redacted).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Post respectfully requests an order unsealing the
appellate briefs, which directs the District Attorney to provide counsel for the Post with copies of
these documents, with the names of victims redacted, within seven days of the issuance of this
Court's unsealing order.
Dated: New York, New York
January 11, 2018
Respectfully submitted,
DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP
/Y1
By : U✓2:
Robert D. Balin
John M. Browning
1251 A venue of the Americas, 21st Floor
New York, NY 10020-1104
Telephone: (212) 489-8230
Facsimile: (212) 489-8340
Email: robbalin@dwt.com
johnbrowning@dwt.com
Attorneys for Non-Party Movant NYP Holdings, Inc.
4
In its affidavit filed in opposition to the December 21 Motion, the Manhattan District Attorney indicated that "to
the extent that the Post is unable to furnish notice to the victims, this Office, which was not the prosecuting agency,
is not in a position to do so." Browning Aff. Ex. E. The Post has mooted this objection by refiling its motion and
providing the Florida Prosecutors with notice of its intent to wiseal the appellate briefs with victims' redacted.
48l l-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
17