Todd Blanche’s Unsealing Request in Florida Was Designed to Fail
I know, right? Todd Blanche’s unsealing request in SDNY is also designed to fail.
But I want to look at how the denial went down in SDFL. Not only did Judge Robin Rosenberg make sure to get DOJ to reaffirm it knew it was asking her to do something it could not do, but she made a point of saying that the request to unseal two grand jury dockets — one from 2007, the year of the Jeffrey Epstein plea deal — is not related to the SDNY dockets, because DOJ is not conducting any investigation in those SDNY dockets.
The original request acknowledges this won’t work
Blanche’s original request to unseal — he names two grand juries, one (05-02) before the Alex Acosta plea deal and one (07-103) the same year — differs from the SDNY ones in several ways.
First, SDFL’s US Attorney, Hayden O’Byrne, signed and filed the court filings. Blanche adds language to say that DOJ would work with SDFL to make redactions of victim-related information if the grand jury transcripts were released.
Second, Blanche acknowledges that he’s requesting transcripts “associated with grand jury investigations,” as opposed to indictments.
Third, Blanche includes a paragraph noting that under 11th Circuit precedent, SDFL can’t release grand jury transcripts.
The Department of Justice recognizes that this Court is bound by Pitch v. United States [citation omitted] (district courts lack inherent, supervisory power to authorize the disclosure of grand jury records outside of exceptions enumerated in Rule 6(a)(3)). Nevertheless, the Department raises this argument due to the significance of the matter and to preserve it for any potential appeal.
Pitch is a 2020 decision in which the 11th Circuit rejected a historian’s effort to unseal grand jury transcripts about the investigation into a 1946 lynching, during a period when J. Edgar Hoover was reluctant to bring cases on lynching.
Judge Rosenberg asks how Blanche thinks this could work
In response, Judge Robin Rosenberg (an Obama appointee) instructs DOJ to clarify a few things. First, she asks whether DOJ thinks this request falls under any of the exceptions under Pitch, that 11th Circuit precedent.
The rule of secrecy is subject to exceptions, but in this Circuit, there are only five–that is, there are five, limited exceptions under which a district court may authorize the disclosure of grand jury materials. [citation omitted]
It is unclear from the Petition whether the government is arguing that any of the five exceptions applies to its request.
[snip]
In supplemental briefing, the Government shall clarify whether (1) it concedes that this Court must deny the Petition under binding Eleventh Circuit precedent, but that it nonetheless seeks an order from this Court so that it may file an appeal; or (2) it argues that an exception applies that would permit this Court to grant the Government’s Petition, together with legal argument in support of same.
She then asks whether there’s any reason to believe that a grand juries from 2005 and 2007 arose out of the one in SDNY, which is the only way she could transfer it.
Because the Florida Proceedings appear to have been initiated many years prior to the New York Proceedings, any argument that the Florida Proceedings nonetheless arose out of the New York Proceedings must be accompanied with an explanation and with legal argument in support of the same.
[snip]
Alternatively, if, under applicable law, there is no legal basis to transfer the Petition, the Government should clearly state the same.
Basically, Rosenberg was just forcing the government to concede that they were asking her to do something she could not.
SDFL attempts to claim Rosenberg has the authority
The response from SDFL (it’s not clear who is behind this response; O’Byrne signed it with an electronic signature) answers Rosenberg’s questions in reverse. First, SDFL claims that Rosenberg should transfer the case, because the petition arises out of those much later indictments.
This Petition to Disclose (filed July 18, 2025) arises out of two highly publicized judicial proceedings in the Southern District of New York: the indictment and criminal prosecution of Jeffrey Epstein [citation omitted], and the subsequent federal criminal indictment, trial, and conviction of Ghislaine Maxwell in the Southern District of New York [citation omitted]. Indeed, the relief sought in this petition is ancillary to the relief sought in those cases.
Then, SDFL answers Rosenberg’s first question — conceding she has no authority to release the grand jury materials, but then citing irrelevant precedent claiming she could anyway.
Consistent with its petition, the government recognizes the Eleventh Circuit precedent holds that no exception outside those expressly enumerated under Criminal Rule 6(e)(3) authorizes a court to publicly disclosure grand jury materials. [citation to Pitch omitted] The government also recognizes that, in this circuit, only an en banc decision or the Supreme Court may overrule that decision.
That said, decisions from other circuits support public disclosure of grand jury materials under “special circumstances,” including when a matter possess historical interest by the public.
Rosenberg notes that the New York proceeding is irrelevant
After reviewing the posture of the case, Rosenberg responds in the same order she posed the question. She notes that the exceptions SDFL cited are not among those under which she would have the authority under Eleventh Circuit precedent to release the transcripts.
The Government’s Petition to unseal the grand jury transcripts is not based on any of the exceptions in Rule 6. Instead, the Government makes two arguments outside Rule 6. First, the Government argues that disclosure is proper because “many of the rationales supporting grand jury secrecy under Rule 6(e) no longer apply to this investigation because of Jeffrey Epstein’s death.” Supp. Br. at 5. It further argues that “the public’s strong interest in th[e] historical investigation into Jeffrey Epstein constitutes a special circumstance justifying public disclosure.”
[snip]
Contrary to the Government’s stated basis and the Second and Seventh Circuits,1 the Eleventh Circuit has directly held that a district court “do[es] not possess … the power to order the release of grand jury records not covered by Rule 6(e)(3)(E).
[snip]
The government does not assert that disclosure is appropriate under any exception in Rule 6(e)(3)(E).
[snip]
The Government concedes as much in its Petition.
1. A district court is bound by the decisions of its intermediate appellate court. That is, this court, the Southern District of Florida, is bound by the decisions of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
I assume Rosenberg provided that elementary language about precedent for readers who don’t know how this works, but I can’t help but hear some scolding at DOJ for trying to confuse the issue.
She then denies the request to transfer the case, in significant part because Blanche is not asking to transfer the grand jury proceedings to support an ongoing investigation in SDNY.
The Government’s request for transfer does not arise out of a judicial proceeding; the Government does not seek the disclosure of evidence for itself. Indeed, the Government provided the evidence sought to be unsealed with the Petition. Consistent with the fact that the Government does not need the evidence, it has not filed the Petition for the purpose of prosecution4 the New York Federal Proceedings — the trial-level proceedings concluded years ago. Similarly, the Government has not filed the Petition because unsealing the evidence is necessary for the proper litigation of the New York Federal Proceedings.
[snip]
Further, the text of the Petition sources the need for the Petition in the Government’s recent public memorandum summarizing its investigation into Mr. Epstein. Pet. at 1 (“[T]he Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation issued a memorandum describing an internal [sic exhaustive] review undertaken of investigative holdings relating to Jeffrey Epstein.”) Because that memorandum resulted in great public interest, the Government filed the instant Petition. Id. {[T]here has been extensive public interest in the basis for the Memorandum’s conclusions.”) As such, the request to unseal arises from the Government’s internal investigation, from its public statements about that investigation, and from great public interest in the investigation, but it does not arise from the New York Federal Proceedings themselves. The Government has not filed the Petition in response to a pleading, objecting, strategy or ruling in the New York Federal Proceedings, and it does not state that it will use the unsealed evidence in furtherance of any case-related objective. The trial proceedings have concluded.
And with that, she denied the request and ordered that this case “should be directly assigned to the undersigned,” just in case anyone else in the District tried to poach the case, I guess.
At one level, I think by forcing the secondary briefing, Rosenberg forced DOJ to concede that they knew they were making a request she had to reject. She’s not going to take the fall for this.
More interesting, though, is that second grand jury, the one from the same year that Epstein signed a plea deal eliminating any possibility of further charges for him or his co-conspirators (including Ghislaine Maxwell) in SDFL. Todd Blanche is claiming that it pertains to Jeffrey Epstein personally. I’m not sure whether it does or not.
Update: Per the Office of Professional Responsibility summary of the Alex Acosta investigation, there was a 60-count indictment in SDFL in May 2007. It’s possible the prosecutor needed to get a second grand jury after the first expired. Or it could be something else.
In May 2007, the AUSA submitted to her supervisors a draft 60-count indictment outlining charges against Epstein. She also provided a lengthy memorandum summarizing the evidence she had assembled in support of the charges and addressing the legal issues related to the proposed charges.
Update: I failed to note that Seamus Hughes found this docket.
The judge’s ruling reads like she’s peeved but she’d not angry. “DoJ knows better, even if I get why you did this for PR reasons” without the “Don’t waste my time” anger that a lot of DoJ filings bring since January 20th.
I get the PR aspect but do you think that the DoJ will try to appeal to appellate judges with eyes on Thomas, Alito, and Roberts’ seats?
AG Bondi and. DAG Blanche will follow Trump’s normal pattern in litigation with a potential for an unfavorable outcome – delay, delay, delay. They are in no hurry to release records that might be unfavorable. They just want to look like they are.
With Pitch 2020 being an en banc decision, and it being the government’s stated basis for its “potential appeal,” said appeal could only be heard by 11th en banc, or the Supremes right?
Are they seriously going to walk into the 11th and ask the entire crew to overrule themselves from 5 years ago with an argument of “we think the 2nd and 7th got it right, and you guys didn’t”
This was a dice roll for Judge Cannon. Blanche/Bove/ and Woodward played a very similar 6e smoke and mirror argument that she 100% bought and spent a year frothing over it.
It was a weak entry level brief but for de novo reviews, the district court’s opinion and the district court briefing could be ignored if judges wanted to do so. SCOTUS ignores inconvenient facts and even precedent they wrote nowadays all the time, with members overruling themselves.
So, I could see it as a loyalty test, if they thought a few votes had switched. It was a mish-mash of decisions, 4 judges dissented, two judges would be Senior and off the en banc, 2 new judges were added, etc. To which the judge here said, “You checked the box, get out of here.”
Or this could be a PR-only thing to which the judge said, “Keep that weak [stuff] oughta here.”
The Grand Jury court application is a distraction. It’s wildly inappropriate that Trump’s defence attorney/ Deputy AG is anywhere near this. If Trump really wanted to instill confidence, rather than do a cover-up, Pam Bondi should have appointed an Independent Counsel.
That November 12, 2020, DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility report is a major focus of Mike Benz propaganda campaign. He has been going all over, mostly right wing partisan, podcasts to do interviews and live streaming his own videos.
The very Q-like Benz has been pushing for Bondi to release all underlying materials to that report. In particular Acosta’s interview transcript and CIA general counsel questions.
He just did a recent interview on a podcast called Triggernometry. I’m not familiar with it, if it’s partisan or not, but Benz appeared to making an effort to stay neutral in the first 30 mins that I have watched, in his description of historical intelligence & Epstein activities.
https://archive.is/ByBmo
https://youtu.be/wlwp6AS1Hp0
The title is: “Is the Truth about Epstein being covered up? Epstein, CIA, Mossad, Trump ”
If people are interested in Epstein’s history, and who are interested information warfare narratives, I recommend to listen.
It would be worth fact checking along the way and asking what Benz is leaving out, what he is emphasizing, how he is shaping the narrative. I will attempt to do so. I think that serious investigative journalists should do such.
Why I keep following this and focusing on it: it should be clear by now that in addition to Trump’s Epstein problem, the deep state has its own Epstein problem. I suspect Benz is taking a topic that the media will avoid, and shaping the narratives in a way to help Trump to escape his part of the Epstein problem.
“…the deep state has its own Epstein problem.”
What do *you* mean by “the deep state,” zscore? (Everyone seems to have their own meaning for that phrase.)
I would say the “Deep State” is Personified by BiLL Barr.
The national security community/intelligence community. Sorry, I use it tongue in cheek.
Acosta: “I was told Epstein ‘belonged to intelligence’ and to leave It alone.”
And Acosta is believable because why?
Who bought him, that he let Epstein go?
An unsubstantiated rumor reported as fact.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/i-was-told-epstein-belonged-to-intelligence-and-to-leave-it-alone
I’m sorry, but I’m a little confused about the chapter under the heading “SDFL attempts to claim Rosenberg has the authority.” I think SDFL stands for Southern District of Florida, which is judge Rosenberg in this case. To me, the text after the heading makes more sense when I read “SDFL” as “DOJ.”
And the document linked to the word “response” in the first sentence — “The response from SDFL (it’s not clear who is behind this response; O’Byrne signed it with an electronic signature) answers Rosenberg’s questions in reverse.” — is electronically signed by Blanche. Or should the link lead to a different document?
I’m sorry, but I just want to understand.
The US Attorney’s Office has divisions corresponding to each of the federal districts as well.
Thank you!
Yes, the DoJ has US Attorneys offices in each federal district court district, 94 of them, which handle the DoJ’s work in that district. Each is run by a Senate-confirmed US Attorney.
There are also 13 federal appeals courts, which take appeals from the district courts in their circuit. Their decisions are binding only on district court judges in their circuit. To distinguish it, DoJ’s office in DC is often referred to as Main Justice.
The Deputy Attorney General is the DoJ’s number two official, after the Attorney General. They manage the day-to-day business of the entire dept. It is exceptionally rare for a Depty AG or an Associate AG to take charge of a specific case, even on appeal.
Thank you for your reply, too. So I get that the acronym SDFL is not unambiguous, but just naming the district, referring to either the federal district court or the US district attorney, and I should be aware of the context.
Exactly, just as SDNY is the Southern District of New York state, which includes much of NYC.
As an aside, “district attorney” is reserved for state prosecutors, such as the DA for Manhattan South. “US Attorney” or USA refers to the chief federal prosecutor for a judicial district, such as SDNY.
Sorry for the shorthand. Down two rabbit holes parallel to this one.
And thanks to the folks for helping out.
Generally, an argument asking a court to do something must be based on precedent, or when there isn’t precedent, a good faith argument to extend or modify existing law. There obviously wasn’t any precedent in the Eleventh Circuit for the request, and DOJ didn’t even pretend to make any argument for extension or modification of existing law. Thus, DOJ ensured that this “request” would be DOA both at the trial level and in the Eleventh Circuit.
This is so, so transparent. The judge wrote her order to make people understand that. I just hope they do.
As an aside, J. Edgar Hoover was always reluctant to investigate lynchings. But he did investigate as subversives people who advocated for federal anti-lynching legislation.
Judge Rosenberg was being lenient. A defining characteristic of Trump’s personal attorneys, and now the DoJ, is the abuse of precedent. That is, making arguments that the rulings in cases they cite either do not support or explicitly reject.
Trump plants seeds for precedents . He boldly goes where there is no precedent, just like McConnell . All of which brought us a precedent ignorant SCOTUS.
Criminals boldly going where no one has gone before .
Imho.
If the DOJ withdraws it’s defense of the Maxwell appeal, what does that do to the case? Do you think that might be the deal being offered to Maxwell? Would that let Trump claim he didn’t set her free, a judge did? Or blame Acosta again if SCOTUS sets her conviction aside based on the appeal?
The problem for Trump and DOJ is not how to free Ghislaine Maxwell. I suppose they could walk away from the appeal, do a commutation, or a pardon. The problem is how do they spin it to make their supporters believe that they have not just rewarded and released a sex trafficker.
A sex trafficker of minor children, and a suspected rapist of the thousand girls. That perspective might not slip so easily off Donald Trump’s teflon back.
I think they are going to do the old “throw out shiny baubles” to distract and deflect routine. I saw a clip of Trump talking to the media this morning. He was asked about the birthday card. Said it was a forgery. Then added that the press should be talking about Bill Clinton who went to Epstein’s island 28 times, And how about Larry Summers? Then I just read something from Politico, I think that Maxwell was asked about 100 names. The 100 names satisfies the MAGA desire for a list. And I am sure that Trump’s name was not asked about. Or if it was, they will lie.
Her attny. would never have let her speak with DOJ without a proffer in place beforehand.
Maybe the source behind the WSJ Epstein Birthday Book/Trump doodle-poem is hiding in plain sight. Maybe it is Mark Epstein, Jeffrey’s brother.
In August of 2019, Jeffrey Epstein “committed suicide” in federal lockup, during the Trump administration. One day after his death, Richard Khan (Jeffrey’s long-time accountant, now Executor of his Estate) was photographed taking a big blue bag out of Jeffrey’s Manhattan home. What was in the bag? Coulda been a birthday book? Tapes? Pictures? Who knows?
Mark Epstein has never believed his brother committed suicide. He commissioned a forensic pathologist to be present at the autopsy. Both experts, according to Mark, concluded homicide was more likely than suicide. So Mark has been publicly pissed off. For a long time.
But Mark probably couldn’t be sure who killed his brother.
Trump famously campaigned in 2023 on promises to release the Epstein files and put guys like Kash Patel and Bongino in the government to make sure they are released.
That gets us to 2025. AG Bondi smugly announced she has the Epstein list on her desk, and she made a public scene, promising to release the Epstein List and Files.
But . . . Something changes in March. In March 2025, DOJ and FBI are put on 24-hour shifts, and told to flag anything that involves Donald Trump. That review ended in mid-April. Bondi then informed Trump he was in the Epstein Files.
The result of that review was like a record scratch. On July 6, DOJ and the FBI release a memo saying “nooooope, nothing in the Epstein files.” And, in a detail Mark Epstein surely noticed, the memo flatly declares that Jeffrey Epstein killed himself.
At this point, Mark Epstein is probably pretty certain that the Trump Administration is covering up his brother’s murder.
On July 8, people notice that there is one minute missing from the Epstein jail video. By July 15, analysts have determined that there are actually three minutes missing from the Epstein jail video, and that the video is likely tampered with.
By this point Mark Epstein is probably boiling over with rage.
Just two days later, on July 17, Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ, of all f’n outlets, published the Trump/Epstein Birthday Book/Trump doodle-poem story. Now, who, you might ask, might be a beneficiary of the Epstein Estate and have access to the Birthday Book? Well, maybe Jeffrey’s brother, Mark, who believes Trump had his brother murdered in prison and covered it up sloppily by erasing three minutes of the video? Bradly Edwards, an attorney who represented Epstein victims, recently said in an interview that he is sure the Epstein Estate has the Birthday Book, and congress could subpoena it.
Anyway, we are getting to the part about why all this may matter. On July 18 Trump sues the WSJ. But the WSJ doesn’t stop. Which is weird. If all they had was this one piece of evidence, why continue an onslaught? On July 23, the WSJ breaks the story that Bondi told Trump he is in the Epstein files back in April or May.
Since then, Mark Epstein has been very public about how every time the Administration opens its mouth on the Epstein Files, they are “putting their leg further down their throat.” And how “that video is bullshit” (referring to the Epstein jail video released by the Trump Administration). And that “they’re holding things back.” And how “Jefferey said, he said he had the dirt on Donald Trump.”
All of this suggests its possible that Mark Epstein, a likely beneficiary of the Epstein Estate, a guy who may have access to the contents of that blue bag Richard Khan grabbed from Jeffery’s Manhattan home a day after Jeffery died, and a guy who thinks Donald Trump murdered his brother, has a ton more evidence to release, and all the motivation in the world to release it. Which explains why Rupert Murdoch didn’t have the slightest hesitation ignoring Trump’s pleas, and going ahead with the Epstein/Trump Birthday Book story.
Because maybe Rupert Murdoch’s WSJ has Mark Epstein, and whatever was in that blue bag, as their source.
[Welcome to emptywheel. SECOND REQUEST: Please choose and use a unique username with a minimum of 8 letters. We have adopted this minimum standard to support community security. Because your username is too short and common it will be temporarily changed to match the date/time of your first known comment until you have a new compliant username. Thanks. /~Rayne]
Excellent deduction. Mark Epstein sounded unhappy in his recent interview on CNN:
In which Mark Epstein recounts being asked to identify his brother’s body.
The one thing that does not, or does, fit the timeline is Vance’s June 11 visit to Rupert Murdoch in Montana in June.
Maybe unrelated. But if it is related, then Mark Epstein’s knowledge of the flat statement “Jeffrey killed himself” from DOJ/FBI comes earlier.
Which I guess wouldn’t surprise me very much.
[Moderator’s note: see your previous comment and reply below. “Jack” is too short and common for a username. /~Rayne]
To change your username with your next comment, simply overtype the Name field with a new unique username no less than 8 letters in length.
Please check your browser’s cache and autofill; future comments may not publish if username does not match each time you comment.
At the time of Vance’s visit, I thought it was in regards to Israel-Iran. In hindsight that would have been a good cover — the real reason for the meeting could have been media coverage of the White House with Israel-Iran only part of that discussion.
Did Mark Epstein’s knowledge come from whatever interaction he had with law enforcement at the time he was asked to identify his brother’s body, or the autopsy?
I thought that the video is not even of Epstein’s jail cell.
The video is from a camera in the jail that they say covers the only area with access to Epstein’s cell block. The claim is anyone entering Epstein’s cell would be seen passing by this camera.
“Pitch is a 2020 decision in which the 11th Circuit rejected a historian’s effort to unseal grand jury transcripts about the investigation into a 1946 lynching, during a period when J. Edgar Hoover was reluctant to bring cases on lynching.”
Wow. Off the major topic, but I’d like to think there’d be some statute of limitations in that these documents could be of historical significance and anyone involved in a 1946 lynching case would be long dead. Are grand jury transcripts to be off limits forever?