Court Records
Filing # 192998689 E-Filed 02/29/2024 10:30:55 AM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CA FLORIDA HOLDINGS, LLC, Publisher of THE PALM BEACH POST, Plaintiff, v. DAVE A RONBERG, as State Attorney of Palm Beach County, Florida; SHARON R. BOCK, as Clerk and Comptroller of Palm Beach County, Florida, Defendants. CASE NO.: S0-2019-CA-014681-AG ./.', ORDER ON THE GRAND JURY TESTIMONY REGARDING JEFFERY EPSTEIN < 41V Jury %il kThe Court was tasked with determinin e e release of the Grand records would further justice. For different reasons, the Co ache the same conclusion as the two predecessor judges who also denied the request. TherejEleoft records will not furtherjustice as our law currently prescribes. cos This is despite many atte ptso eral months to force itself to reach an opposite conclusion; however, after weighing all of th factors n re Petition of Craig, 131 F.3d 99, it is clear there is no nexus between those findings and furth nglustice. This Court cannot weigh those factors in a way that "will furtherjustice. These factors are: thflleigity the party seeking disclosure; In this th4thatis the private entity that owns the Palm Beach Post —a large news media corporatbn. Thisifoctum cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help furtherjustice. The press has a noble obligiiflop to inform the public, but that is not synonymous with furthering justice. The press has no greateraccess to grand jury proceedings that the public. (ii) whether the defendant to the Grand Jury proceeding or the government opposes the disclosure; There is no one that opposes the disclosure of those records. It is understandable that no one opposes the release of the records as they pertain to the horrific atrocity that is pedophilia. However, this FILED: PALM BEACH COUNTY, FL, ABRUZZO, CLERK, 02/29/2024 10:30:55 AM EFTA02736783 foctum cannot be construed to further justice. It only indicates an eagerness for the release of the records, which is insufficient underour current law. (iii) why disclosure is being sought in the particularcase; This is sought to 'further justice" but how this furthers justice is thread-bare, disjointed and poorly articulated. The argument presented is premised on the first amendment (freedom of the press) and an exception offurthering justice. The Courts are not seeking to limit the freedom of the press, but the press is not entit any greater access than the public merely because they are the press. The Court does not t w Id further justice merely because the media seeks release, as opposed to any interested e release wouki potentially promote the advancement of other noble interests such as cre ting transparency, but that is not the legal standards of our current law. (iv) what specific information is being sought fordisclosu The Petitionerseeks the release of Grand Jury testimony, 'Aisi S se skive information that is generaly kept secret and closed to the public. The Court weighs thIsketor against the release of the materials. \\ N\(v) how long ago the Grand Jury procel s took place; The proceedings are remote in time. T cannot be construed in any meaningful way to help further justice. If anything after rev win .the material the overwhelming majority of the substance has been previously reported tythe media ormade the subject of documentaries. ...? (vi) the current status of the principals of the GrandJury proceedings and that of their families; -,,,-^iThis is unknown to the Cou7 rt7 as the Petitioners are not the principals. Perhaps if a child victim who Frtestified had d the petition, the Court's analysis could be different as to portions of the proceedin is or is weighed against releasing the records. O (vii) the extent to which the desired material—eitherpermissibly or impermksibly—has been Deviously made public; The Grand Jury testimony material has never been made public. A large amount of substance of the material or what occurred inside the Grand Jury room has been previously reported —even by the Post — without attribution. The testimony was previously released to a law enforcement agency to assist in a law enforcement investigation — the results of which are unknown to the Court. The release to law enforcement to EFTA02736784 conduct on investigation would clearly be to furtherjustice, but that does not carryover to the instant request. (viii) whether witnesses to the Grand Jury proceedings who might be affected by disclosure are still alive; and The Court has no knowledge of the current status of the witnesses and cannot use this factor in any meaningful way to determine the release would further justice underour current law. Onif contrary,the Aathere is the express manifestation of reluctance to testify to avoid embarrassment by inor victim. Release in this circumstance would not furtherjustice underour current law, and as 0 ast known intent of witnesses, the Court strongly weighs this factor against the release of the Materials. (ix) the additional need formaintaining secrecy in the particularcpse in question. Grand Jury proceedings are generally always kept secret an tire to the public. This is generally to protect jurors, witnesses, those accused, and the inte f the case. Secrecy allows people to serve as jurors and witnesses to testify without fearof outs ce or retaliation. In some cases, it also ensures the protection of an innocent suspect's tio secrecy also makes it less likely that a defendant will abscond after learning they ar estigated. Any concern for the reputation of Epstein is not a valid consideration in th.fl q e, b t the purpose of Grand Jury secrecy remains important. The Court weighs this factor agar t e rase of the materials, under ourcurrent law. Additionaly the child victim witnesses have/not re ed their desire to be named. This strongly indicates a desire to maintain secrecy. TheCou weighs is factor strongly against disclosure andfinds it will not further justice. Concluding its lysis, the Court determines there is no nexus between the release of the records and furtheran ust . It is a position so untenable it would requirea change in the statute to justify release of the als. The.cougiS aware that the release of the records would accomplish many other positive objectives such as attarncing the public's interest in its criminal justice system and advancing a private corporate interest that promotes a healthy and robust news media. Those positive outcomes do not furtherjustice. Judicial restraint, that is avoid judicial overreach, has been important since foundation of our nation. Furthermore, the separation of powers is fundamental to our system of government. As has been said 'We are judges, not kings." Therefore, judges cannot not exercise our will over ourjudgement— no matter how much we may wish to do so. The Courts cannot usurp the roles of the legislator or governor and render moot pending or passed legislation because it would be easier or more popular to do so — no matter how much easier it may seem to do so. In our Republic, popularsentiment is the concern of the EFTA02736785 political branchesof government, not the courts. Under our current law, the legislature has allowed the release to "furtherjustice"—not to advance a public interest. For those reasons the request is DENIED under our current law. However, today the Governor of Florida signed CS/HB117 amending Florida Statute 905.27 effective July 1, 2024. This amendment significantly modifies the definition of "furthering justice" to expressly include furthering a public interest when the disclosureis requestedpursuant to paragraph 905.27(2)(c). 905.27(2)(c) now reads as follows: When a court orders the disclosure of such testimony pursuant tosubsection sponse to a request by the media or an interested person, regardless of whetherthat a criminal or civil case, it may be disclosed so long as the subject of the g? r inquiry is IIdeceased, the grand jury inquiry related to criminal or sexual activity bt u) t e subject of the grand jury investigation and a person who was a minorat the time I sth ged criminalor sexual activity, the testimonywas previously disclosed by a court er, d the state attorney is provided notice of the request. This paragraph does not lim co sability to limit the disclosure of testimony, including, but not limited to, red ruse in ADDITIONAL FI N DI Nt T COURT The Court finds that the request involvesam er public interest. The criminal prosecutionsof the most infamous pedophile in American hist For almost 20 years, the story of how Je vulnerable has beenthe subject of muc criminal justice system. On or afterJu to how to weigh this as a factor. egan'In Palm Beach County —with much controversy. Epstein victimized some of Palm Beach County's most d has at times diminished the public perceptionof the the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as Addingto the public inter stein is indeed infamousand is widely reported to have cavorted with politicians, billionaire even British Royalty. It is understandable that given those reports the public has a great cu iosity t what was widely reported by news agency as "special treatment" regarding his pros s matter is clearly the subject of public interest. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will e ai7Ajmotionforreconsiderationastohowtoweighthisasafactor. Th fi s that this request is made by the media, specifically the Palm Beach Post The Palm Beach P ewspaper of record in our county, and has a long and rich history documenting our local communi any local resident still rely on the Post to obtain information on national, state and local events. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. The Court finds Epstein is also widely reported to have been deceased since August 10, 2019, under controversial and "newsworthy" circumstances, at Metropolitan Correctional Center in the state of New York. This adds to the public interest. On or afterluly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. EFTA02736786 Having reviewed the testimony, the Court also finds the testimony relates to sexual activity between Epstein and child victimsof sextrafficking. Again, it is widelyaccepted that Epstein is a notorious and serial pedophile. The testimony taken by the Grand Jury concerns activity ranging from grossly unacceptable to criminal —all of it sexually deviant and disgusting. On or afterJuly 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh this as a factor. The Court also notes the testimony was previously disclosed to law enforcement agencies. Further, the State Attorney was properly noticed and withdrewany objections to release and even did his best to disclose the information in his office's possession without delay via internet portal. On or after July 1, 2024, the Court will entertain a motion for reconsideration as to how to weigh all o his this as a factor. The law is amended effectiveJuly 1, 2024 and the parties are given leave to file a motion for reconsideration filed on or afterluly 1, 2024. cie dIT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, the petition to release the Gran n p edings regarding Jeffery Epstein under the current law is DENIED. DONE and ORDERED at West Palm Beach, Palm Beach l$920WA91 499024i. 14 44714 Mofit RCUIT — Luls D•I a Pr Judy* , 502019C AO 1460 I X XXXIM 02/29/2024 Luis Delgado Circuit Judge EFTA02736787