Epstein Secrets

6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on August 6, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Martin G.

n to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the discovery order under Mohawk Industries I Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On July 12, 2013, Epstein responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 16, 2013, the victim's replied in sup

05 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on July 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. Martin G Weinberg, P.C. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 1 EFTA00209506

, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case) (Mot. Dismis

28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on July 12, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. ,ill e• A et• 11 1 1 M ( ( Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC Paul G. Cassell EFT

motion to dismiss Epstein's interlocutory appeal, explaining that this Court lacked 6 EFTA00209513 jurisdiction in light of Mohawk Industries'. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On June 26, 2013, Epstein sought a stay of the district court pending appeal. DE 193. Two days later, the victims opposed the

he foregoing document was served on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 16 EFTA00209615

matic example of when interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the Eleventh Ci