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

dentiality on which defense counsel have reasonably relied for many decades in negotiating with government attorneys on behalf of their clients. In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court focused on four primary considerations governing the recognition of privileges under Rule 501: the needs of t

A00599889 Jeffrey Epstein's Level 3 sex offender status upheld by NY appeals court By Dareh Gregorian November 18, 2011 5:00am Multimillionaire pery Jeffrey Epstein may not consider his Florida conviction for soliciting a minor a big deal, but New York does. A state appeals court yesterday upheld the financier'

office in Dade County. The causes of action and damages against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein accrued in Dade County, Florida, due to specific acts by Epstein there, and accordingly, venue is appropriate there. Florida Statute 47.011. 2. Florida Statute 48.193(1)(a)(I) ("long-arm") authorizes service on

. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the conduct of Defendant Epstein, and have accordingly retained undersigned couns

nal Service on a Natural Person VS. DEFENDANT(' JEFFREY EPSTEIN. TYLER MCDONALD. TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A

ot be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein's complete fulfillment of all the terms of his no

lege is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary bit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 I. 10-15 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiations

n’s private jets. The U.S. Attorney General’s Office in Florida says that it is against policy to confirm or deny the existence of an investigation. Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer, Jack Goldberger, says he has no knowledge of an ongoing probe, and he told The Daily Beast, "Jeffrey Epstein has fully complied with all stat

an office in Dade County. The causes of action and damages against Defendant Jeffrey Epstein accrued in Dade County, Florida, due to specific acts by Epstein there, and accordingly, venue is appropriate there. Florida Statute 47.011. Ds Florida Statute 48.193(1)(a)(1) (‘long-arm”’) authorizes service on b

4. Plaintiffs have been damaged by the conduct of Defendant Epstein, and have accordingly retained undersigned counse

Natural Person VS. DEFENDANT(S) JEAN-LUC BRUNEL JEFFREY EPSTEIN, TYLER MCDONALD, TYLER MCDONALD D/B/A Y

not be any pending criminal investigations, given Mr. Epstein’s complete fulfillment of all the terms of his no

ege is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15 (1996}—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiatio

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's 3 EFTA00177813 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must begin with an understanding

tion agreement" ("the agreement") between the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. §3771. Under the agreement, Epstein agreed to (1) plead guilty to two then pend

the Southern District of Florida (USAO/SDFL) and Jeffrey Epstein (Epstein) pursuant to the Crime Victims'

ould render Rule 410 ambiguous and would violate Mr. Epstein's Fifth Amendment rights. The rule's central fea

e admitted in evidence as proof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996), and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant public and private ends. Discovery and use of plea negotiations

and Incorporated Memorandum of Law, and in support there of states as follows: 1. This is an action to recover money damages against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the then- minor, C.M.A. 2. Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for

REY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitution committed upon the then- minor, C.M.A. 2. Plaintiff has plead thirty separate counts against EPSTEIN for separate incidences of abuse committed by EPSTEIN against Plaintiff pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255. 18 U.S.C. §2255, entitled "Civil remedy for pe

case. 7. Presently pending before the Court is Defendant EPSTEIN's Motion to Compel Plaintiff C.M.A. to Respond t

tion to recover money damages against Defendant, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, for acts of sexual abuse and prostitutio

e, C.M.A.'s treatment records from the Inc. and are protected by the psychotherapist-patient privilege pursuant to the Supreme Court's decision in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 116 S.Ct. 1923 3 EFTA00201395 Case 9:08-cv-80811-KAM Document 114 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/05/2009 Page 4 of 8 C.M.A. vs. Epste

intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use, and disclosure of his plea

ntervene. Established case law as well as sound and substantial policy considerations prohibit disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Epstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the government, and require that the letters and emails that Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain

morandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective

disclosure of the letters and emails prepared by Mr. Epstein's lawyers during plea negotiations with the gove

on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 10 of 23 A. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Rule 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognition of testimonial privileg

TRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2 FOR PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jeff

sure of all the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use the content of the communications that memorialized ongoingse plea and settlement negot

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPO

during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane D

oof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. D. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognitio

TRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS OF JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2 FOR PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jeff

sure of all the plea negotiation letters and emails between his lawyers and federal prosecutors during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 to use these plea negotiations as substantive evidence in their quest to invalidate the Non- Pr

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. INTERVENOR JEFFREY EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER AND OPPO

during the criminal investigation [DE 50 at 5]. Mr. Epstein also opposes the motion of Jane Doe 1 and Jane D

oof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. D. "REASON AND EXPERIENCE" ARE THE TOUCHSTONES FOR ACCEPTING A COMMON LAW PRIVILEGE FOR PLEA NEGOTIATIONS Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 5-6 (1996), is perhaps the leading case addressing Federal Rule of Evidence 501 and the common-law principles underlying the recognitio

re the important facts, taken from the 11th Circuit's opinion: The case arose in 2006, the FBI began investigating allegations that wealthy investor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of minor girls. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida accepted Epstein's case for p

stor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of minor girls. The U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida accepted Epstein's case for prosecution, and the FBI issued victim notification letters to my two clients, minors Jane Doe No. I and Jane Doe No. 2, in June and Aug

n investigating allegations that wealthy investor Jeffrey Epstein had sexually abused dozens and dozens of

alidate that agreement and permit prosecution of Mr. Epstein' More News We Recommend From Around the Web •

ge is rooted in the imperative for confidence and trust, the evidentiary benefit of the denial of the privilege, and any consensus among the states, Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-15 (1996)—but none of these considerations weighs in favor of recognizing a new privilege to prevent discovery of the plea negotiat

y Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc. 161); Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's Motion for a Protective Order and Opposition to Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiations (Doc.

ecutors in the Southern District of Florida made with the specific purpose of obtaining a favorable resolution of the criminal investigation of Mr. Epstein through attorney-to-attorney settlement negotiations. In determining whether to grant a stay pending appeal, the Court is to consider four factors:

rs Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court

ntinuing exchanges of letters and memos in which Mr. Epstein's counsel addressed the reasons why Mr. Epstein s

e admitted in evidence as proof of guilt." Herman, 544 F.2d at 797. Plea negotiations are "rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust," Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10 (1996), and maintaining their confidentiality advances significant public and private ends. Discovery and use of plea negotiations