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

re & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003) 32,33, 38,40 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 14, 20, 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 51, 52, 55 In re Air Crash Near Cali, Colombia, 959 F.Supp. 1529 (S.D.F1a. 1997) 38, 40 In

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. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1,

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. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Do

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

ell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10.

, an appeal from the final decision will allow review of the district court's ruling." Wilson v. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); accord Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Mohawk decision has altered the legal landscape related to collateral appeals of d

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

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

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

rk Racing Ass 'n, Inc., 399 F.3d 391, 398 (1st Cir. 2005) 13, 15, 19 Gotham Holdings, LPG. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664 (7th Cir. 2009) 15 Holt-Orsted. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 10, 11, 15 In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d 133 (3d Cir. 2012) 9 In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 43 F.3d

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. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14.

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. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jef

7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court bel

r rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of the victims and notified them that they were protected "victims" under the CVRA. The Office, however, ultimately reached a plea dea

y, an appeal from the final decision will allow review of the district court's ruling." Wilson'. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641, 643 (7th Cir. 2010); accord Holt-Orsted I City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 236-40 (6th Cir. 2011) ("[T]he Mohawk decision has altered the legal landscape related to collateral appeals of di

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

t 606-07. That, however, is not the case here. Since the attorney intervenors are not "litigants" or parties in this action, under both Wilson and Holt-Orsted, they would retain the right to appeal under Perlman. Plaintiffs seek to cast Mr. Epstein as a "litigant" in this action, but his limited intervent

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

t 606-07. That, however, is not the case here. Since the attorney intervenors are not "litigants" or parties in this action, under both Wilson and Holt-Orsted, they would retain the right to appeal under EFTA00584613 Perlman. Plaintiffs seek to cast Mr. Epstein as a "litigant" in this action, but his li

e of their plea negotiations; and, if so, whether a privilege bars crime victims from discovering plea negotiations. The United States investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, but failed to confer with the victims before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Two victims filed suit agai

tates investigated Jeffrey Epstein's sexual abuse of minors, but failed to confer with the victims before entering a non-prosecution agreement with Epstein. Two victims filed suit against the United States to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and sought to disc

CA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from t

7th Cir. 2010); see also In re Grand Jury, 705 F.3d at 145-46 & n.11 (rejecting that Mohawk narrowed Perlman "at least in the grand jury context"); Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230, 239 (6th Cir. 2011) (recognizing that Perlman jurisdiction remains when a nonparty asserts a privilege); Krane, 6

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

rcuit has indicated in a civil case that Perlman jurisdiction is still viable after Mohawk where the privilege holder is not a party to the action, Holt-Orsted, 641 F.3d at 239; and the Seventh Circuit has indicated in a civil case that Perlman jurisdiction still attaches where the person asserting the priv

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

at 606-07. That, however, is not the case here. Since the attorney intervenors are not "litigants" or parties in this action, under both Wilson and Holt-Orsted, they would retain the right to appeal under Perlman. Plaintiffs seek to cast Mr. Epstein as a "litigant" in this action, but his limited interventi