Epstein Secrets

uring those negotiations against either party. BACKGROUND The Court is very familiar with this matter, having handled the civil suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and this actions filed by Jane Does #1 and #2 against the United States. For purposes of this Supplemental

of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger— have been redacted. The Intervenor Attorneys ask that the Court order that the Ja

gotiations between the Intervenors (on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein) and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Inte

by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to

/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR COURT TO DECLARE RELEVANCE AND NON-PRIVILEGED NATURE OF DOCUMENTS, ETC

and/or Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege and Attorney Work Product With Regard to Sealed Documents, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), respectfully submits the attached Opinion in the case of Jane Doe No. 1 v. United States, 749 F.3d 999 (11th Cir. 2014), attached to this Notice

OUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

eving that Bill Clinton was on the airplane with Mr. Epstein and these young woman ..." (18:24- 19:7.) • "I

e District Court in similar circumstancesr I Exhibit B, at 35-36. Edwards supported this last statement with the following authorities: See, e.g., Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1429 (3d Cir. 1991) (Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to the Justice Department d

uring those negotiations against either party. BACKGROUND The Court is very familiar with this matter, having handled the civil suits filed against Jeffrey Epstein pursuant to the Non-Prosecution Agreement and this actions filed by Jane Does #1 and #2 against the United States. For purposes of this Supplemental

of the government, the Jane Does have only received the portions of the correspondence written by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by Jack Goldberger— have been redacted. The Intervenor Attorneys ask that the Court order that the Ja

gotiations between the Intervenors (on behalf of Jeffrey Epstein) and the U.S. Attorney's Office. The Inte

by government attorneys — all of the writings of Mr. Epstein's attorneys, excepts for a few short portions by

and ongoing plea negotiations. See In re Keeper of the Records (Grand Jury Subpoena Addressed to XYZ Corp.), 348 F.3d 16, 27-28 (P` Cir. 2003). In Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Third Circuit decided that Westinghouse's disclosure of work product materials to

ice arranging a highly unusual and secretive non-prosecution agreement. The victims have already explained at length why the correspondence between Epstein's lawyers and government prosecutors is simply not confidential material to which any kind of privilege or other protection could attach. See Jane

able here because it would, at most, bar admissibility of the correspondence into evidence "against the defendant who made the plea" — i.e., against Jeffrey Epstein. But the victims intend to obtain and use the correspondence to seek relief from the Government. Accordingly, the Rule cannot be used to bar the vic

ughly litigated by the defense attorneys' client (Jeffrey Epstein) more than a year ago, and Epstein's arg

f work product materials to the government during plea bargaining waives all work product protection. The Government acknowledges, for example, that Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), explicitly adopts this position. That case concluded that Westinghouse's disclosure o

/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT ROTHSTEIN, individually, and BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, individually, Defendants/Counter-Plaintiff. / COUNTER-DEFENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON EDWARDS' WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTIONS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), submits this M

FENDANT JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MEMORANDUM OF LAW ON EDWARDS' WAIVER OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND WORK PRODUCT PROTECTIONS Counter-Defendant Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein"), submits this Memorandum of Law as to the Doctrines of Waiver of Attorney-Client and Work Product protections as claimed by Edwards and at issue

OUNTY, FLORIDA Case No. 50-2009CA040800XXXXMBAG JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant, v. SCOTT

here a party under investigation discloses allegedly privileged documents to a government agency, as part of efforts at cooperation. For example, in Westinghouse Electric Corp. v. Republic of the Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414 (3d Cir. 1991), the Court addressed "whether a party that discloses information protected by the atto

tervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 162]; intervenors' notice of supplemental authority in support of asserted comm

er Rule 6(eX3)(AXii) or (iii). 2 EFTA00600055 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 3 of 11 work-product of Epstein's legal counsel; (2) the correspondence is protected under grand jury secrecy principles codified at Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) because its subject matte

District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the Crime Victims' Rights Act (C

293 F.3d 289 (6th Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10'" Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

tervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 162]; intervenors' notice of supplemental authority in support of asserted comm

Rule 6(e)(3)(A)(ii) or (iii). 2 EFTA00602808 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 188 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/18/2013 Page 3 of 11 work-product of Epstein's legal counsel; (2) the correspondence is protected under grand jury secrecy principles codified at Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) because its subject matte

District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and counsel for Jeffrey Epstein to prove the Crime Victims' Rights Act (C

293 F.3d 289 (6ih Cir. 2002), cert. dismissed, 539 U.S. 977 (2003); In re Quest Communications International, Inc., 450 F.3d 1179 (10ih Cir. 2006); Westinghouse Electric Corp. v Republic of Philippines, 951 F.2d 1414, 1428-31 (3d Cir. 1991); In re Subpoena Duces Tecum, 738 F.2d 1367, 1372 (D.C. Cir. 1984). Finally, the c

s Polk Dentons Dickinson Wright Dudley Topper Epstein Becker Green EFTA00032976 --- PAGE BREAK ---

s USA Inc. StreetEasy Inc. The Boeing Company Trump Organization Inc. VEON Ltd. Vectren Corp. VimpelCom Ltd. Vizio Inc. Wal-Mart Stores Inc. Westinghouse Electric Corp. World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. Zeughauser Group LLC EFTA00032978 --- PAGE BREAK --- known she had consented to an arbitration pact when sh