Epstein Secrets

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's R

ment of inconvenience does not go far because many of the issues raised by Mr. Epstein parallel the issues raised by attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Letkowitz as well as those raised during the August 12, 2011 hearing, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 do not have to file their responsive pleadings addressing

ment 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 3 of 9 First, they argued in their opposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real party in interest" and that "harm from the release of the materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane D

materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has

several of the categories it claims are work product have been denied such status. This is the case with training and attendance sheets, see. e.g., Burton I R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co„ 170 F.R.D. 481, 486 (D.Kan. 1997) (document evidencing attendance of two company employees at meeting not work product

the wealthy financier. The other lawyer, Jay P. Lefkowitz, helped secure [the previous deal]. The split na

ment reviews of Epstein's case, because another lawyer at his then-firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had represented the wealthy financier. The other lawyer, Jay P. Lefkowitz, helped secure [the previous deal]. The split nature of Barr's recusal suggests that federal prosecutors in New York — who unsealed new sex traffic

as on his way to work at 6:25 a.m., the assistant principal had called, agitated and yelling about graffiti. 'It's everywhere,' he kept saying, so Burton had leaned on the gas and rushed the last few miles. ... He turned a corner and saw something written in large capital letters on the sidewalk: 'BU

ment reviews of Epstein's case, because another lawyer at his then-firm, Kirkland & Ellis, had represented the wealthy financier. The other lawyer, Jay P. Lefkowitz, helped secure [the previous deal]. The split nature of Barr's recusal suggests that federal prosecutors in New York — who unsealed new sex traffic

the wealthy financier. The other lawyer, Jay P. Lefkowitz, helped secure [the previous deal]. The split nat

was on his way to work at 6:25 a.m., the assistant principal had called, agitated and yelling about graffiti. 'It's everywhere,' he kept saying, so Burton had leaned on the gas and rushed the last few miles. ... He turned a corner and saw something written in large capital letters on the sidewalk: `B

sis in original). A true and correct copy of that email correspondence is annexed hereto as Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred

Exhibit D. 9. On or about December 18, 2018, I contacted Jay Lefkowitz, who represented appellant Jeffrey Epstein in the above-captioned appeal. Mr. Lefkowitz told me that he no longer represents Mr. Epstein and referred me to Martin Weinberg, who currently acts as counsel for Mr. Epstein. 10... On or abou

e ieee eee rere oe wel rare otanelv ene Ccenias ees 13 Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., OS CUBR tay OLY.) En a a ee en eee ee ene ae eee 13 People v. Burton, 189 A.Dd 532, 397 N.Y S 2d 48 (id Dept 1993) crsncncasuceeuuessummeansceeracerveumuameneess 13, 16 People v. Epstein, 89 A.D.3d 570, 933 N.Y.S.2d