Epstein Secrets

UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opposition to the suppl

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refer

mpany's disclosure of documents to the SEC during criminal investigation waived work product protections); Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question); In re Columbia

e Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to oppose the motion of attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz (hereinafter referred to as "defense attorneys") to intervene in this case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a) (DE #56). The motion to intervene should be

INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also refer

e government is no longer confidential — and therefore no longer protected by the work-product doctrine. See Grace United Methodist Church City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question). Because no con

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(c)(3)(E). Everything the victims are disc

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

government is no longer confidential — and therefore no longer protected by the work-product doctrine. See Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 668 (10th Cir. 2005) ("any work product objection was waived by [party] via production" of the documents in question). Because no con