Epstein Secrets

appellate to resolve? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 10:59 AM To: USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? Des It has been nearly two weeks since we sent this request to you, and we haven't heard anything ba

USAFLS); , . I. (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? D

rcuit. Our understanding of DOD's position on interlocutory appeals is that they are notimnissible in these circumstances, particularly in light of Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 =. 599 (2009) (affirming 11th Circuit decision that an attorney-client rivilege order is not immediately appealable). As you proba

lees v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 brad@pathtoju

sons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00

2013 WL 2120157, at *5 (D.C. Cir. 2013) 13, 17 Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida v. United States, 516 F.3d 1235, 1265 (11th Cir. 2008) 21 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) passim Nat'l Super Spuds, Inc. v. N.Y. Mercantile Exch., 591 F.2d 174, 178 (2d Cir.1979) 13 Perlman v. Unit

motion with the Government. We would like to know your position on the motion. Please let us know when it would be convenient to confer. Sincerely, Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Subject: RE: Are you going to confer with us? It has been nearly two weeks since

rad Edwards pat tojustice.com> Subject: RE: Government's po

uit. Our understanding of DOD's position on interlocutory appeals is that they are not permissible in these circumstances, particularly in light of Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.C.t. 599 (2009) (affirming 11th Circuit decision that an attorney-client rivilege order is not immediately appealable). As you pr

D: June 28, 2013 14 EFTA00209613 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 15 of 16 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at th

nt 198 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/28/2013 Page 15 of 16 Respectfully Submitted, s/ Bradley J. Edwards Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. and Paul G. Cassell Pro Hac Vice S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Jane Doe #1 and Ja

ge litigation is a paradigmatic example of when interlocutory appeals are proper, the Supreme Court has recently and flatly concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc. I Carpenter, 130 S.Ct. 599 (2009), an opinion that immediately appears when performing basic research on this issue, the Supreme Court affirmed the

ONEYWELL,* District Judge. * Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge for the M

only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209639 Cas

rsons have an interest in the outcome of this case: 1. Marra, The Honorable Kenneth 2. Acosta, R. Alexander 3. Black, Roy 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923

State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286 (4th Cir. 2012), cert. denied, 133 S.Ct. 991 (2013) 55 *Missouri v. Frye, 132 S. Ct. 1399 (2012) 12, 35,36 Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009) 46, 47, 48, 49, 51 EFTA00209664 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 9 of 75 Moulder v. State, 154 I

ONEYWELL,* District Judge. * Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge for the M

es only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman' United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S. Ct. 417 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mohawk Industries, Inc.I Carpenter, 558 U .S . 100, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), forecloses an interlocutory appeal of a denial of a claim of privilege. 8 EFTA00209748 Case: