Epstein Secrets

DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205363 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possible outcome

ulates any errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and tha

DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205343 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possible outcome

ulates any errors in the pretrial process. b&. Lafler I. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri I. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and tha

NE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previousl

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed during the litigation on intervention. We only add that,

d Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that was previously filed during the litigation on intervention. We only add that, in Lafler' Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376 (2012) and Missouri.. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012), the United States Supreme Court flatly rejected the arguments by Jane D

&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

m of trials," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth

NE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 3 EFTA00583391 A. The Applicability of Rule 410. Any assessment of the merits of the intervenors' contentions must beg

t inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. !after v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel "extends to the plea bargaining process" and tha

NE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a Protective Ord

ntal Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 2 EFTA00584592 Ninety-four percent of state convictions are the result of guilty pleas. The reality is that plea bargai

m of trials," it is insufficient simply to point to the guarantee of a fair trial as a backstop that inoculates any errors in the pretrial process. Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S. Ct. 1376, 1388 (2012); Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399, 1407 (2012). In Lafler and Frye, the Supreme Court ruled that the Sixth

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/plea negotiation correspondence (Doc.

— appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited pur

vernment were paradigmatic efforts, consistent with the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel during plea bargaining, see, e.g., Lafler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), to engage in settlement discussions falling within the core protections of Rule 410. The district court also rejec