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

urch of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 1110 (1995) 21 Folb v. Motion Picture Industry Pension & Health Plans, 16 F.Supp.2d 1164

tein 12889705 NCA customised Closed - liit 16/06/2017 BIS RESULTS: Negative Media: Mali On I ine MailOnline May 24, 2017 Wednesday 10:53 PM GMT Jeffrey Epstein's 'sex slave' settles her defamation lawsuit against British socia xwell who 'passed her around for sex' and trained her to be 'everything a man wa

recruited her as a sex slave when she was 15 for convicted pedophile billionaire Jeffrey Epstein and passed around to his friends Maxwell, who was Epstein's girlfriend at the time, is also accused of forcing her to have sex with Maxwell and other underage girls The 55-year-old responded to the allegat

ion of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved. Date:6/16/2017 Report processed by: DEUTSCHE BANK AGII Full Name Address County Phone EPSTEIN. JEFFERY E 9 E 71ST ST NEW YORK (212) 750-9895 NEW YORK. NY 10021-4102 (212) 249.1122 NEW YORK COUNTY (212) 772-9416 ADDITIONAL PERSONAL INFORMATION SSN

2546965 (Age 64) Subject Summary Name Variations 1: EDWARDS. JEFFERY 2: EPSTEIN, J 3: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY 4: EPSTEIN, JEFFERY E 5: EPSTEIN, JEFFREY 6: EPSTEIN. JEFFREY E 7: EPSTEIN. JERRERY 8: EPSTIEN, JEFFERY 9: EPTSTEIN. JEFFERY SSNs Summary No. SSN 1: 090-44-XXXX DOBs Reported DO

N. MARK L SSN:117-444OOCX DOB:1955 (Age: 62) EPSTEIN, PAULA A Deceased • AKA EPSTEIN, PAULINE SSN:050-09-XXXX DOB:10/1918 (Age: 98) TUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLY • AKA EPSTEIN, ELLYN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEINTUCKER. ELLYN EPSTEIN • AKA EPSTEIN. E • AKA TUCKER. EPSTEIN ELLYN • AKA EPSTEIN-TU

Such "opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordinary circumstances." Cox v. Adm'r U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994). For internal use only SDNY_GM_00059575 CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.CON(F IDENTIAL DB-SONY-0022399 EF

oe 1 and Jane Doe 2 complain that the government treated them unfairly by not keeping them involved in the government's settlement negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. They seek to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Mr. Epstein and the government, claiming that the agreement violates the Crime Victi

ng them involved in the government's settlement negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. They seek to invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Mr. Epstein and the government, claiming that the agreement violates the Crime Victims's Rights Act. Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2 seek disclosure of all the lette

in the government's settlement negotiations with Jeffrey Epstein. They seek to invalidate the Non-Prosecu

invalidate the Non-Prosecution Agreement between Mr. Epstein and the government, claiming that the agreement

a, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); ax v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

S DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA GRAND JURY MATTER FILED UNDER SEAL IN RE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS ) DUCES TECUM IS D TO ) MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS AND INCORPORATED MEMORANDUM OF LAW Now comes Jeffrey Epstein and respectfully moves this Honorable

Mr. Jeffrey Epstein, including, but not ling to, retainer agreements; employment agreements; billing statements (whether submitted directly to Mr. Epstein or to a third party for reimbursement); records of the dates when services were performed and the hours worked; ••••••r telephone logs or records

Y SUBPOENAS ) DUCES TECUM IS D TO ) MOTION OF JEFFREY EPSTEIN TO INTERVENE AND TO QUASH GRAND JURY SUB

illing statements (whether submitted directly to Mr. Epstein or to a third party for reimbursement); records

erial prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. 422 U.S. at 238-39; see also See Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir.), modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11i° Cir. 18 Black. Srebnick. Kornspan 8( Stumpf 201 S. Biscayne Boulev

eement of the parties. that appearance was rescheduled for July 17, 2007. The day before that scheduled appearance, i.e.. July 16. 2007. counsel for Jeffrey Epstein, who seeks to intervene in this matter, was informed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motio

nformed by Deputy Chief that Riley did not have to appear physically before the grand jury if a motion to quash the subpoena at issue was filed by Epstein before the end of the day on July 17. 2007. As the Government's Response states. Epstein's motion to quash was filed on July 17, 2007 before the clo

he Response of the United States to the Motion of Jeffrey Epstein to Intervene and to Quash Grand Jury Sub

d jury subpoenas to investigator and his firm, Mr. Epstein is represented by undersigned counsel Roy Black.

erial prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself. 422 U.S. at 238-39; see also See Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11i6 Cir.), modified on other grounds, 30 F.3d 1347 (11th Cir. 18 Black Srebnick, Komspan &St ro n 20I S. Biscayne Boulevard

necessary" (doc. #17 at I). The Office asserted that the Court need only take judicial notice of the fact that no indictment had been filed against Epstein to resolve the case. On August I, 2008, the victims filed a response to the Government's "Notice" (doe. #19), giving a proposed statement of facts

n for sexually abusing them. During the course of that litigation, in June 2001, they obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and Jeffrey Epstein's legal counsel. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 ultimately settled their civil suits in July 2010. During the settlement discussions, they informed Epste

hether a charging document was ever filed against Jeffrey Epstein in the United States District Court for

in "the same position as they would have been had Mr. Epstein been convicted at trial." Declaration of Marie V

, 959 F. Supp. 1529, 1536-37 (S.D. Fla. 1997) ("a highly particularized showing" is required to overcome a claim of privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994) ("Opinion work product enjoys a nearly absolute immunity and can be discovered only in very rare and extraordi

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

00 Miami , FL 33131 Roy E. Black BLACK SREBNICK KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

te 1300 Miami FL 33131 Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00799973 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel

nt argues that its internal deliberations led to a decision not to notify victims because the line prosecutor wanted to avoid the possibility that "Epstein's counsel would impeach the victims and my credibility by asserting that I told victims they could receive money for implicating Epstein." DE 403-10

ick Komspan & Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 Fax: 358-2006 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Is/ &ale. p. 5cloanda 1 I EFTA00600127

2006 Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein Is/ &ale. p. 5cloanda 1 I EFTA00600127

examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." DE 421 at 7 (citing Cox v. Administrator, U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994)). The Government has clearly injected its deliberations into the case, and fairness requires that the Court fi

officer under his direction." Consequently, the discretionary decision not to notify additional victims of the NPA, and risk likely impeachment by Epstein's attorneys if a criminal prosecution ensued, cannot be the basis of a finding that the government violated the CVRA. The main thrust of petitioner

K KORNSPAN & STUMPF 201 S. Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300 Miami , FL 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421; Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 421 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/25/2017 Page 11 of 11 Dexter A. Lee Assistant United States Attor

ax: 305-358-2006 Email: Attorneys for Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein 10 EFTA00601691 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KA

airness requires an examination of communications otherwise protected by the attorney-client privilege loses that privilege." Cox v. Administrator. U.S. Steel & Carnegie 17 F.3d 1386, 1422 (11th Cir. 1994. The subject matter waiver doctrine does not apply since the government's assertion that the decision not to tel