Epstein Secrets

tachments: # 1 Motion for Sanctions)(Reinhart, Bruce) (Entered: 05/03/2011) 05/12/2011 80 REPLY to Response to Motion re 1¢ MOTION to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz filed by Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Martin G. Weinberg. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/12/2011) 05/16/2011

g Fee $ 75.00. Receipt # 16719. (ksa) (Entered: 04/05/2011) 04/07/2011 5_¢ MOTION to Intervene of Roy Black Martin Weinberg, and Jay LeJkowitz by Roy Black. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 04/07/2011) 04/07/2011 57 Defendant's MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law In Excess of Twenty Pages by Uni

2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of Jane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012) 12 21/2012 M RESPONSE in Opposition re M Motion to Expedite Rul

, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafanaeusdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (30

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient

011 Page 25 of 25 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on December 5, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 25 EFTA00204916

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient

titioners can use documents and information that they received via discovery from other lawsuits in this litigation, as well as briefing related to Roy Black, et al.'s motion asserting a work product privilege. Much of the material that falls within the scope of the Court's order, which allowed only limit

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel

titioners can use documents and information that they received via discovery from other lawsuits in this litigation, as well as briefing related to Roy Black, et al.'s motion asserting a work product privilege. Much of the material that falls within the scope of the Court's order, which allowed only limit

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel