Epstein Secrets

ncerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of

E IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal should be granted. Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, the Eleventh Circuit will have jurisdiction over their appeal from the Court's disclosure order, and the standard for granting a stay pending appeal is amply satisfied i

ay. What is your position on this motion? We understand you are conferring with Washington DO), and hope that they will agree that expansion of the Perlman doctrine is clearly not in the Government's interest. Thanks for providing us whatever information you can as soon as you can. Brad Edwards and Pau

cations. Kenneth A. Marra From: Paul Cassell To: . (USAFLS Cc: (USAFLS)" , "Brad Edwards r < Date: 07/01/2013 02:21 PM Subject: RE:MTD in the Eleventh Circuit Hi Brad and I are preparing to file today in the Eleventh Circuit a motion to dismiss Epstein's frivolous interlocutory appeal, for reasons outlin

f these issues for the functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order, and questions of privilege and confidentiality asserte

The CVRA at §3771(e) defines a "crime victim" as " a person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal offense." In the Eleventh Circuit, a two-part test is employed to determine whether an individual qualifies as a crime victim under this statute: First, the court must identify the

f these issues for the functioning of the criminal justice system counsels in favor of granting the requested stay. Intervenors have standing under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), to pursue an interlocutory appeal of the Court's order, and questions of privilege and confidentiality asserte

e communications at issue; the plaintiffs will suffer no harm from the granting of a stay until these critically important issues can be resolved by the Eleventh Circuit; and to the extent that the public has an interest in the matter, it would favor considered appellate resolution of the issues presented prior to t

ncerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of

E IN OPPOSITION TO INTERVENORS' MOTION TO STAY Intervenors' Motion for Stay Pending Appeal should be granted. Contrary to plaintiffs' contentions, the Eleventh Circuit will have jurisdiction over their appeal from the Court's disclosure order, and the standard for granting a stay pending appeal is amply satisfied i