Epstein Secrets

ndeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of whether a party was entitled under the Cohen Plaintiffs demand that intervenors inform them whether they believe the rules of civil procedure apply to this case. Motion at 11 n.3. That questio

e foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Y BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FA

o fashion equitable remedies . . . ." Hardison v. Cohen, 375 F.3d 1262, 1266 (11th Cir. 2004). The Eleve

7 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.C. 20 Par

ndeed, it did not so much as mention Perlman. Those two distinctions are critical. In analyzing the issue of whether a party was entitled under the Cohen Plaintiffs demand that intervenors inform them whether they believe the rules of civil procedure apply to this case. Motion at 11 n.3. That questio

Y BLACK ET AL., Intervenor/Appellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF

ct (CVRA), 18 U.S.C. § 3771 1, 5 Grand Jury Proceedings, 142 F.3d 1416, 1419 (11th Cir. 1998) 15 In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1992) 16 In re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 641 F.2c1 I99 (11th Cir. 1981) 16 In re Grand Jury Procee

rved on July 2, 2013, on the following using the Court's CMJECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 22 EFTA00209594

ave all involved grand jury subpoenas. In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, 142 F.3d 1416 (11th Cir. 1998); hi re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488 (11th Cir. 1992); hi re Grand Jury Proceedings, 832 F.2d 554 (11th Cir. 1987); hi re Grand Jury Proceedings in the Matter of Fine, 6

ved on June 28, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 16 EFTA00209615

Appx. 934 (11th Cir. 2012) 33 Blackledge v. Allison, 431 U.S. 63 (1977) 31 Church of Scientology v. United States, 506 U.S. 9 (1992) 46 Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949) 47 Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnegie, 17 F.3d 1386 (11th Cir. 1994), cert. denied,

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Tel: (305) 371-6421 Fax: (305)358-2006 [email protected] jp

sinessmen for Free Enterprise v. City of Hollywood, 648 F.2d 956, 957 (11th Cir. 1981). See, e.g., In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings (FGJ 91-9), Cohen, 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992). Those factors are amply satisfied in this case: there is a strong likelihood that intervenors will prevail on

te@usdoj goy LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED EFTA00177831 Case: 9:08-cv-80736-KAM As of: 06/26/2013 07:08 PM EDT 2 of 16 Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Komspan &Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 intervenor Martin G. Weinberg J ntervenor Jay Lef

party to the litigation, which this case does not. Second, Mohawk was concerned with an interlocutory appeal under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949), not with the Perlman exception to the final judgment rule; indeed, it did not so much as ment

Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 Interven