Epstein Secrets

51. 6 EFTA00209366 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the corre

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

ATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 16 EFTA00209615

ge litigation is a paradigmatic example of when interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the

trict court to compel the United States to produce all requested discovery about the plea negotiations. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys, Roy Black and Martin Weinberg, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the disclosure and use of the correspondence they wrote during plea

only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Cas

venors/Appellants ON APPEAL FROM AN 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

State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 I

trict court to compel the United States to produce all requested discovery about the plea negotiations. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys, Roy Black and Martin Weinberg, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the disclosure and use of the correspondence they wrote during plea

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.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case:

ts on behalf of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation c

ssed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perhnan jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme

ourt consider the jurisdictional arguments raised in their brief in reaching its decision on the issue. EFTA00583884 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 /s/ Martin G. Weinbe

decision in In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1420 n. 9 (11th Cir.1998). EFTA00583882 Brief of Intervenors/Appellants at 45-52. Unlike Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), Epstein and the attorney intervenors intervened solely for the limited purpose of seeking to prevent the disclos

ts on behalf of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/pl

herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), and, contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perlman jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme