Epstein Secrets

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

4 ii EFTA00209467 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 4 of 25 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 516 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) Overby,. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158 (11th Cir. 1955) Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918)

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

4 ii EFTA00209536 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 4 of 25 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, 516 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2008) Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) Overby,. U.S. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 224 F.2d 158 (11th Cir. 1955) Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918)

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

2013 WL 2120157, at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida I United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc.' N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman I U

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

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209392

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

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209433

victims, appellees Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (hereinafter "the victims"). On July 2, 2013, the appeal of intervenors-appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein") challenging that discovery order was docketed. On July 2, 2013, the victims filed a mot

"the victims"). On July 2, 2013, the appeal of intervenors-appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein") challenging that discovery order was docketed. On July 2, 2013, the victims filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that t

the appeal of intervenors-appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referr

ictims filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, explaining that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the discovery order under Mohawk Industries I Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On July 12, 2013, Epstein responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 16, 2013, the victim's re