HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
1.64 MB
Extraction Summary
4
People
5
Organizations
2
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal filing (motion/memorandum of law)
File Size:
1.64 MB
Summary
This document is page 9 of a legal filing outlining a dispute between 'The Post' and the Manhattan District Attorney's Office regarding the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein. The text highlights that while Epstein's counsel took 'no position' on the unsealing, the DA's office reversed its initial stance of 'not opposing' the motion and subsequently opposed it, arguing that the Post failed to notify prosecutors in Florida. The document includes a footnote disputing the legal necessity of notifying Florida prosecutors.
People (4)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Mr. Epstein | Defendant/Subject |
Subject of the appellate briefs being requested for unsealing.
|
| Karen Friedman Agnifilo | Assistant District Attorney |
Signed an affirmation opposing the Post's motion on December 28, 2018.
|
| Counsel for the Post | Legal Counsel |
Representing the media outlet seeking the unsealing of documents.
|
| Counsel for Epstein | Legal Counsel |
Stated they took no position on the unsealing of the briefs.
|
Organizations (5)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Post |
Media organization filing the motion to unseal documents.
|
|
| District Attorney’s Office |
Manhattan DA's office; initially stated they would not oppose, then opposed the motion.
|
|
| Manhattan District Attorney’s Office |
Specific office holding the briefs.
|
|
| Federal and local prosecutor’s offices in Florida |
Mentioned as parties that supposedly should have been notified.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Indicated by the footer stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
Timeline (3 events)
December 28, 2018
Date of the affirmation signed by ADA Karen Friedman Agnifilo opposing the motion.
New York
Relationships (2)
The Post filed a motion which the DA's office opposed despite earlier saying they would not.
Counsel for the Post contacted counsel for Epstein to ascertain his position.
Key Quotes (4)
"District Attorney’s Office stated in an email that it would “not oppose” the Post’s motion requesting that a redacted brief be produced."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
Quote #1
"“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.”"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
Quote #2
"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,”"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
Quote #3
"The Post firmly disputes the District Attorney’s contention... that section 50-b requires the Post to serve any prosecutor who touched Epstein’s case in Florida"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,264 characters)
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 ¶ 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
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
9
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016496
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document