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

s confidential, and accordingly they should be made part of the Court's public file. In addition, no sealing order could be justified in this case. The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States' O

rs" within the meaning of Rule 6(e), then it likewise violated grand jury secrecy for government attorneys to make such disclosures to (for example) Jay Lefkowitz. Disclosures of confidential grand jury matters can only be made upon court order. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(E). Everything the victims are disc

eys to make such disclosures to (for example) Jay Lefkowitz. Disclosures of confidential grand jury matters

osecutors made such a shockingly lenient plea arrangement with Epstein. The public has a strong interest in learning the details of criminal cases. The Eleventh Circuit has accordingly instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in Unit

ly to reach the;Palm Beach area. U.S. Attorney's Correspondence at 29. 13. On about September 24, 2007, the U.S. Attorney's Office sent an e-mail to Jay Lefkowitz, criminal defense counsel for Epstein, regarding the agreement. The e-mail stated that the Government and Epstein's counsel U.S. Attorney's Corresp

LSD Docket 03/21/2011 Page 7 of 42 felony offenses and would serve only county jail time. Many of the negotiations are reflected in e-mails between Lefkowitz and the U.S. Attorney's Office. See generally Exhibit "A." 10. The evidence supporting these charges was overwhelming, including the interlocking

oner, she would have explained why this proposed disposition did not begin to reflect "the seriousness of the offense " 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A). The Eleventh Circuit has instructed that the district courts must make substantial findings before sealing records in cases before it. For instance, in United States v.

ice" in § 3771(a)(5) is 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

by Epstein's attorneys to the Deputy Attorney General. Ex... On June 23, 2008, John Roth, Senior Associate Deputy Attorney General wrote to Messrs. Lefkowitz and Stair, advising them that "federal prosecution of this case is appropriate." Ex. I. Mr. Roth also told Epstein's attorneys that their allegation

bits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment." New Hampshire I. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The Eleventh Circuit has identified three factors to be considered in determining whether to apply the equitable doctrine: (1) whether there is a clear inconsistency bet

I (a)(5) is significant 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Leflcowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

hts associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a Federal distr

bits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment." New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The Eleventh Circuit has identified three factors to be considered in determining whether to apply the equitable doctrine: (1) whether there is a clear inconsistency bet

71(a)(5) is significant 3 Jane Doe No. 2's exculpatory statements regarding Epstein were not lost on his attorneys. A December 21, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz, one of Epstein's attorneys, to U.S. Attorney Acosta, devoted two pages examining Jane Doe No. 2's interview testimony on April 24, 2007. Ex. D at

hts associated with the agreement entered into by the United States and Mr. Epstein in a timely fashion." Ex. N, Nov. 27, 2007 email from Sloman to Lefkowitz. Epstein's attorneys responded by citing to the Attorney General's Guidelines provision stating that there must be a charge filed in a Federal distr

bits "parties from deliberately changing positions according to the exigencies of the moment." New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742, 749-50 (2001). The Eleventh Circuit has identified three factors to be considered in determining whether to apply the equitable doctrine: (1) whether there is a clear inconsistency bet

led "Rsrch re Crime Victims Rights" containing attorney research, handwritten notes, draft victim notification letter, and draft correspondence to Jay Lefkowitz (Also contains a November 28 2007 letter from Kenneth Starr to , and a November 29, 2007 letter from Jay Lefkowitz to R. Alexander Acosta (P-010

Thru P-009125 12/6/2007 Letter from to Jay P. Lefkowitz re Jeffrey Epstein (victim notification) [pursua

be negated because the Government's communications facilitated "misconduct" by depriving the victims of their rights under the CVRA. (DE 265 at 6). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized that "[t]he crime-fraud exception presents one of the rare and extraordinary circumstances in which 15 EFTA00086459 Case 9:08-cv-

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5. Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances. stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price, 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11th Cir. 1985), citin Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Ct. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege

). Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5, Fox Grove supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Broskv 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances, stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci

mal or informal, where the answers might incriminate him in future criminal proceedings." Edwin v. Price 778 F.2d 668, 669 (11i' Cir. 1985), citing Lefkowitz v. Turley 414 U.S. 70, 77, 94 S.C. 316, 322 (1973). See also Ohio v. Reiner 532 U.S. 17, 21, 121 S.Q. 1252 (2001)(The Fifth Amendment privilege is

Citing to U.S. v. Lot 5. Fox Grove, supra, the Southern District Court, Florida, in Ventura v. Brosky, 2006 WL 3392207 (S.D. Fla. 2006), stated — The Eleventh Circuit has also created a test for these circumstances. stating that where there exists a concurrent civil and criminal proceeding, a court must stay a ci