EPSTEIN - POINTS FOR UNSEALING RESPONSE: Introduction The Affirmation of Attorney John Browning with its compendium of articles provides a misleading and unnecessary context for the Court's evaluation of the legal merits of the Motion to Unseal. The documents attached to his Affirmation do not "state facts that are relevant to this motion" but instead constitute a series of tabloid articles offered with the apparent purpose of creating the appearance that Mr. Epstein has been a beneficiary of prosecutorial benefits - federal or state —due to improper political influence. These media attachments with their false suggestions that Mr. Epstein benefited from prosecutorial wrongdoing are irrelevant to the purely legal issue of whether there is any principled justification for the continued sealing of appellate briefs to this Court. Mr. Epstein, however, does want to provide the facts that demonstrate the distortions of the media (Appendices "A"-"C") and that the pleadings of the Movant themselves draw false and unsupportable conclusions that go beyond even their media sources. For instance, no one in the judiciary has ever to the undersigned's knowledge "voiced" suspicion that prosecutors gave Epstein "preferential treatment because of his wealth and his political connections" as asserted in Memorandum of Law, pg 1, 5. Further, there has never been a shred of evidence that any of the persons named by the Movant in their Memorandum of Law, pg 5-6, influenced or participated in anyway in the resolution of Mr. Epstein's legal cases. Further, The Movants claim that Mr. Epstein plead guilty in the federal court is also provably untrue; his plea was solely in the state court as he was never for principled reasons charged with the violation of the federal criminal law. Allegations of favoritism by the New York City District Attorney based on the New York Post's own tabloid articles, Appendices "B" and "C" are both misleading and irrelevant Appendice