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

Page 18 of 24 further notice. (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 2 134 *SEALED* Sealed Document Supplemental Response Regarding Remedies in Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (mg) (Entered: 12/07/2011) 12/07/2011 SYSTEM ENTRY - Docket Entry 134 [raise] res

Motions of Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 for Production, Use, and Disclosure of Settlement Negotiations (Doc. 160); Supplemental Briefing of Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz in Support of Their Motion for a Protective Order Concerning Production, Use, and Disclosure of Plea Negotiatio

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

t include applicable reliefs. (Is) (Entered: 12/07/2012) 12/10/2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support ofJane 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)

te in the settlement conference and should exercise that discretion. Respectfully submitted, BLACK, SREBNICIC, KORNSPAN & STUMPF, P.A. By: /s/ ROY BLACK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 126088 [email protected] JACKIE PERCZEIC, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 042201 jperczek@ rovblack. corn On behalf of Jeffrey Eps

e of material protected by Rule 6(e), both of which are remedies which the plaintiffs have said they are seeking. See Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Doc. 127 at 14. If plaintiffs still intend to pursue the remedy of invalidating M

remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et at, Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecution

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu

remedy that would harm him," Motion to Dismiss Non-Party Interlocutory Appeal (filed by plaintiffs in Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, Roy Black, et al., Intervenors, Eleventh Circuit No. 13-12923, citing Doc.108 at 13 n.3 (Mr. Epstein's assertion that he has an interest in the non-prosecutio

standing to argue that rescission of the non- prosecution agreement would violate Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights. Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (Doc. 127) at 11. II. PERMISSIVE INTERVENTION. The Court need not reach the issu