Epstein Secrets

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

pstein's claim below that a denial of an assertion of privilege can be immediately appealed, the Supreme Court has recently concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed this Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of

ane Doe No. 2 ("the victims") respectfully file this opposition to the motion for a stay pending appeal filed by intervenors- appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein"). At issue is correspondence between federal prosecutors and Epstein's criminal defense

the motion for a stay pending appeal filed by intervenors- appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein"). At issue is correspondence between federal prosecutors and Epstein's criminal defense attorneys concerning plea negotiations. The victims have a

peal filed by intervenors- appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referre

sponsibility [to police prejudgment tactics of litigants] if the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings." Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (internal citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly explained its reluctant to grant a stay pending appeal

or Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209494 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I. THIS COURT SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DISMISS EPSTEIN'S APPEAL IN LIGHT OF HIS CONCESSION THAT HE HAS NOT MADE A RECORD IN THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE MATERIALS AT ISSUE ARE CONFIDENTIAL. 2 II. ANY I

ments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case)