Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
d-29992House OversightOther

Manhattan DA office refuses to release sealed briefs in Epstein appeal, citing civil rights law

The passage reveals that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Cyrus Vance Jr., is actively blocking the release of sealed appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein, indicating potential Danny Frost, communications director for DA Cyrus Vance Jr., cited NY Civil Rights Law 50‑b to deny Frost indicated the DA office would not oppose a court‑ordered petition for a redacted brief. Jeff

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #016425
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The passage reveals that the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, led by Cyrus Vance Jr., is actively blocking the release of sealed appellate briefs related to Jeffrey Epstein, indicating potential Danny Frost, communications director for DA Cyrus Vance Jr., cited NY Civil Rights Law 50‑b to deny Frost indicated the DA office would not oppose a court‑ordered petition for a redacted brief. Jeff

Tags

jeffrey-epsteinpress-obstructionhouse-oversightmanhattan-district-attorneypress-freedomcyrus-vance-jrlegal-exposurefinancial-flow-implied-via-epsmoderate-importancecourt-recordssealed-documentssexual-misconduct

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
os 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. a 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 Jeffrey 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. 10... 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 4840-5788-8644y. 1 3930033-000039

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone1 3930033
Phone840-5788

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "Martin Weinberg"

1p
Court UnsealedJan 26, 2015

Dershowitz Supplement to Motion for Limited Intervention

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 285 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2015 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOES #2 Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ________________________________/ ALAN DERSHOWITZ’S SUPPLEMENT TO HIS MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION (DE 282) Alan M. Dershowitz, a nonparty to this litigation, respectfully supplements his previously filed Motion for Limited Intervention (

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

DS9 Document EFTA00429452

1p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01355640

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.