Epstein Secrets

ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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

n the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013

come of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of

RS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebni

ly pursued their civil monetary remedies against Mr. Epstein to completion — plaintiffs sought to use that co

e deposition testimony, plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Orsted v.

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209469 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

e deposition testimony. plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Orstedi Ci

ed. R. Evid. 501 4, 16 iv EFTA00209538 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 6 of 25 INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

e deposition testimony. plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Orstedi Ci

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4. Instead, he pled guilty to two state felony offenses and served a prison

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

e deposition testimony, plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Orsted v.

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the

Agreement ("NPA") with the government in September, 2007. Under that agreement, contrary to the impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor state offenses." Motion at 4, . Instead, he pled guilty to two state offenses, one of which was a fel

INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein entered into a Non-Prosecution Agreement

e impression which the plaintiffs seek to create, Mr. Epstein did far more than plead guilty to "two minor sta

e deposition testimony, plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Orsted v.

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores that inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Here, intervenors have no such remedy available to them. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." In Holt-Ousted v.

07 (emphasis added). This conclusion underscores the inapplicability of Mohawk in the present circumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to the litigation, having intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclosu

ircumstances. Quite unlike the Mohawk appellant, Mr. Epstein and the attorney intervenors are not parties to

he deposition testimony, plaintiff, who was the privilege holder rather than the deponent, could appeal that decision after final judgment. Notably, the Wilson Court stated that "when the person who asserts a privilege is a non-litigant," "an appeal from a final judgment [will] be inadequate." 4 EFTA00583783