Epstein Secrets

820-8777 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: ann.marie.c.villafanaeusdoj.gov Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Martin G. Weinberg, P.

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient

se, including his criminal defense attorneys Roy Black et al. and an attorney who has represented person

Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond to the Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. The Court should deny the motion. Because the Government has filed a motion to dismiss alleging that the victims' pleadings are facially deficient

ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Intervenor Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 So

2012 181 Notice of Supplemental Authority in support of Jane Doe #1 and Jan Doe #2's Response to Government's Sealed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction by Jane Doe (Edwards, Bradley) Modified on 12/11/2012 (Is). (Entered: 12/10/2012) 12 21/2012 M RESPONSE in Opposition re M Motion to Expedite Rul

s litigation, as well as briefing related to Roy Black, et al.'s motion asserting a work product privile

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel

s litigation, as well as briefing related to Roy Black, et al.'s motion asserting a work product privile

the Court should grant the United States' Motion to Stay Discovery pending the Court's decision on the United States' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and, similarly, deny the Petitioners' Protective Motion to Compel. In both their Response to the Motion to Stay Discovery and their Motion to Compel