HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497.jpg
1.75 MB
Extraction Summary
3
People
6
Organizations
4
Locations
3
Events
2
Relationships
3
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal motion / court filing (excerpt)
File Size:
1.75 MB
Summary
This document is page 10 of a legal motion filed by 'The Post' (a media organization) in a New York court. The motion requests the unsealing of appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein's sex-offender registration (SORA) proceedings, with victim names redacted. It details procedural history, including the withdrawal of a previous motion from December 21 to resolve disputes over notifying Florida prosecutors, and notes the Manhattan Assistant District Attorney Friedman Agnifilo's stance on the unsealing.
People (3)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Friedman Agnifilo | Assistant District Attorney |
Objected to unsealing appellate briefs initially, but conceded to producing redacted copies if the court was inclined.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Defendant / Subject |
Subject of the sex-offender registration proceedings (SORA hearing) and appellate briefs.
|
| Counsel for the Post | Legal Representative |
Representing the media organization moving to unseal documents; contacted Florida prosecutors.
|
Organizations (6)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| The Post |
Media organization (likely The Palm Beach Post or NY Post) filing the motion to unseal documents.
|
|
| Manhattan District Attorney's Office |
Prosecuting authority in New York handling the sex offender registration.
|
|
| Palm Beach State Attorney’s office |
Florida prosecutorial body contacted by the Post.
|
|
| United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida |
Federal prosecutorial body contacted by the Post.
|
|
| Florida Prosecutors |
Collective term used in the document for the Palm Beach State Attorney and US Attorney SDFL.
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Referenced in the Bates stamp (HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497).
|
Timeline (3 events)
Unknown (Historical)
SORA hearing (Sex Offender Registration Act) proceedings against Epstein.
New York
Jeffrey Epstein
Manhattan District Attorney
Locations (4)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Jurisdiction of the court and the SORA proceedings.
|
|
|
Jurisdiction of the prosecutors being notified.
|
|
|
Location of one of the State Attorney's offices.
|
|
|
Federal jurisdiction mentioned.
|
Relationships (2)
The Post is moving to unseal briefs filed by the DA; DA initially objected.
Document references proceedings to register Epstein as a sex-offender prosecuted by the Manhattan DA.
Key Quotes (3)
"we cannot agree … even to a production of the people’s brief with redactions of the names or initials of Epstein’s victims."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497.jpg
Quote #1
"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"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497.jpg
Quote #2
"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"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497.jpg
Quote #3
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,388 characters)
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. ¶ 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.
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. ¶ 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 United 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. ¶¶ 17-18. The Post will also serve the Florida
Prosecutors with copies of this motion.
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 United 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. ¶¶ 17-18. 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.
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.
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.
10
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497
4811-3721-9459v.3 3930033-000039
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016497
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document