Epstein Secrets

/JOHNSON JANE DOE I and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERC, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ This is a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) by attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz, to intervene for the

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERC, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ This is a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civ

omcyJ ay Lefkowitz within the next few days, as soon as a certificate of good standing from the New York Bar arrives. Attorneys Black, Weinberg and Lcfkowitz do not seek intervention to litigate whether the Crime Victims' Rights Act was violated and if so, against whom a remedy is appropriate. Instead, t

t 2 EFTA00177148 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 59 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/07/2011 Page 3 of 9 plea proceedings. Id., citing United States,. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at •17 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 7, 2005). The district court concluded, "[t]he CVRA, therefore, dots not authorize an unbridled gallop to an

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

&Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 Fax: 305-358-2006 Email: pleadinarqyblack com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland &Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 212-446-4970 Email: leflcowitztacirkland com PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

2011. (ir) (Entered: 09/26/2011) 09/27/2011 jail RESPONSE/REPLY tom Supplement Briefing in Support of Motion to Intervene of Black, Weinberg, and Lelkowitz by United States of America. (Villafana, Ann Marie) (Entered: 09/27/2011) 09/28/2011 jaL MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, 2005 WL 2875220 at *17 n. 11 (Senate Debate supports view that contemplated mechanism for victims to obtain information on which to base their inp

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v

tion not only to Epstein, but also to certain co-conspirators. (DE 407 at ¶ 28.) On September 17, 2007, the line prosecutor wrote to defense counsel Jay Lefkowitz: "Please send [a document] to my home e-mail address — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions t

ss — [redacted] and give me a call on my cell [redacted] so I can be ready for some discussions tomorrow." (DE 407 at ¶ 29.) On September 17, 2007, Lefkowitz responded: "[D]o you have another obstruction proffer I can review that you have drafted? Also, if we go that route, would you intend to make the de

state commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for vi

deposition is a "breakfast meeting" that appears to have taken place on around October 12, 2007, between U.S. Attorney Acosta and Epstein attorney Jay Lefkowitz. This Court has previously noted that 18 EFTA00027793 --- PAGE BREAK --- Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 452 Entered on FLSD Docket 05/10/2019 P

/10/2019 Page 19 of 22 this meeting occurred. See Jane Does I and 2 v. U.S, 359 F.Supp.3d 1201, 1210 (S.D. Fla. 2019). And a subsequent letter from Lefkowitz to Acosta briefly refers to "a commitment" by the U.S. Attorney at that meeting that his Office "would not . . contact any of the identified [victi

ate commerce to entice minors to engage in unlawful sexual activity would not be granted until government consulted with victim); United States v. Ingrassia, No. CR-04-0455ADSJO, 2005 WL 2875220, at *17 n. 11 (E.D.N.Y. Sept. 7, 2005) (Senate debate supports the view that the contemplated mechanism for v