Epstein Secrets

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

on FLSD Docket 05:02/2011 Page 6 of 8 other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore I Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted) (addressing an individual's "next friend" status in the context of an appeal); see Loncharl

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

accessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore I Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted); see Lonchar • Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.1992) (applying Whitmore). Obviously the

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

accessibility, mental incompetence, or other disability -- why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf to prosecute the action." Whitmore v. Arkansas, 495 U.S. 149, 163 (1990) (citations omitted); see Lonchar v. Zant, 978 F.2d 637, 641 (11th Cir.I992) (applying Whitmore). Obviously th