Epstein Secrets

Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's R

ment of inconvenience does not go far because many of the issues raised by Mr. Epstein parallel the issues raised by attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Letkowitz as well as those raised during the August 12, 2011 hearing, and Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 do not have to file their responsive pleadings addressing

ment 93 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/02/2011 Page 3 of 9 First, they argued in their opposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real party in interest" and that "harm from the release of the materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane D

materials (if any) could be only to Jeffrey Epstein." Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 6. Second, also in opposing the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowtiz, the plaintiffs argued that "[o]nly Epstein has

strict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

/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

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in de

DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12,

INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDE

strict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

1300 Miami. Florida 33131 By /S/ ROY BLACK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. On Behalf of Intervenors Roy Black and Jay Lefkowitz MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 By /S/ MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. Massachusetts Bar No. 519480 On Behalf of

No. On Behalf of Intervenors Roy Black and Jay Lefkowitz MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in de

o a mere two state prostitution-solicitation charges and agree to an 18-month sentence in the county jail. On September 16, 2007, Epstein's counsel Jay Lefkowitz sent the U.S. Attorney's Office a proposed written agreement, wherein the Office would extend immunity from federal prosecution to Epstein and cer

federal immunity. The co-conspirators did not sign the NPA and were not listed as parties to it. 7 As the NPA was being signed. Epstein's attorney Lefkowitz e-mailed AUSA Villafana, requesting: "Marie— Please do whatever you can to keep this (NPA) from becoming public." AUSA Villafana assured Lefkowitz that

391, 394 (5th Cir. 2008). The Sixth Circuit has deemed it "uncertain" whether CVRA protections apply "prior to [the] filing of ... charges." In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010). The district courts that have considered the question are divided. Compare, e.g., 1' United States it Oakum, No

atts-that4ane-Dee-1-ancl4ane-Dee-2-alrea ma . confidemiel,Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56], as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. EFTA00301857

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

e Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain confidential. Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56), as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. In further sup

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for restitution in d

e Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 already have remain confidential. Mr. Epstein adopts all the arguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and its attached motion for a protective order [DE 56], as well as during the August 12, 2011 hearing. EFTA00301881

trict court concluded that the violations alleged by the victims did not provide a basis for rejecting the plea agreement. Id. at 726-27; see In re Acker, 596 F.3d 370, 373 (6th Cir. 2010) (denying mandamus where petitioners sought to vacate plea agreement which made no provision for EFTA00301887 r