Epstein Secrets

History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would be violated if the v

— appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209357 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EF

History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would be violated if the v

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209569 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

ly Grail" (Ex. F), a "journal" assertedly taken from Epstein's computer and cited by Edwards inn 16-18; correspondence between the U.S. Attorney and Jay Leflcowitz, Esq. (Exs. C and D and 9fq 6, 20, 25) and Lilly Ann Sanchez, Esq. (Ex. L andl 28); a book receipt (Ex. I and 1 22), message pads (Ex. A. 1 24) and

er proper person attesting to their authenticity or correctness. . . . They were received without any foundation other than the representations of Appellees counsel. In short, rule 1.510(e), by its very language, excludes any document from the record on a motion for summary judgment that is not one of t