Epstein Secrets

F AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE O

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

F AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/1

(9th Cir. 2012) 14 United States' Krane, 625 F.3d 568 (9th Cir. 2010) 9 United States' Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196, 205 (1995) 12 United States I Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387 (D.C.Cir. 2009) 15 Wilson. O'Brien, 621 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2010) 10, 11, 15 Constitutional Provisions Sixth Amendment, Uni

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

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte

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

side the grand jury context. See, e.g., Gotham Holdings, LP v. Health Grades, Inc., 580 F.3d 664, 665 (7th Cir. 2009)(civil case); United States v. Williams Cos., Inc., 562 F.3d 387, 392 (D.C.Cir. 2009)(criminal case; rejecting effort to distinguish Perlman on the ground that it arose in the grand jury conte