Epstein Secrets

/2012 Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on December 6, 2012, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (30

TAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to request an expedited ruling on the Government's Motion to Stay. The Government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other motions) the Court has yet to rule

, FL 33401 (561) 820-8711 Fax: (561) 820-8777 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] 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

TAY COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to request an expedited ruling on the Government's Motion to Stay. The Government's motion was filed more than one year ago, yet (presumably because of a flurry of other motions) the Court has yet to rule

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

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein

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

ciently concretized for seeking intervention to contest the rescission remedy sought by plaintiffs.' A motion to intervene before the Court ruled on the Government's Motion to Dismiss which focused, in part, on the question whether rescission was an available remedy at all, would have been premature. Since Mr. Epstein