Epstein Secrets

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

he 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. Weinberg Martin G. Wei

, 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

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

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

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 EFTA00209529

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

ved 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

Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 Ind. App. 248,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421 Fax: (305)358-2006 [email protected] jp

on to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perhnan jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was commenced as an "e

Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Interven

Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1420 n. 9 (11th Cir.1998). EFTA00583882 Brief of Intervenors/Appellants at 45-52. Unlike Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), Epstein and the attorney intervenors intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosure of confide

aised in their brief in reaching its decision on the issue. EFTA00583884 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite