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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 50!, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that t

e government's response to the motion [DE 60]; petitioners' reply to the government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the motion, including moti

intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for

nly whcn it would achieve a public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining the truth, Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11" Cir. 2007), citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 710, 94 S. Ct 3090, 3108, 41 L.Ed. 2d 1039 (1974)( privileg

e government's response to the motion [DE 60]; petitioners' reply to the government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the motion, including moti

ptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz [160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], seeking the continued suppression under seal of c

ict -2, this court declines the intervenors' invitation to expand Rule 410 by crafting a federal common law privilege for plea discussions. See e.g. Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324 (11ih Cir. 2007)(declining to recognize medical peer review privilege in federal discrimination cases); Weiss ex reL Est

&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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

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

refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is

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

efers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is