Epstein Secrets

M, (USAFLS)" < wrote: Paul Cassell is eager to know what the government's position is on the intervenors' appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Judge Marra's interlocutory order. If he is so sure the appellate court lacks jurisdiction, I wonder why it is so important to him that we endorse his argument.

e intervenors' appeal to the Eleventh Circuit on Judge Marra's interlocutory order. If he is so sure the appel

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

eard anything back from you. Are you going to confer with us about this? And what is the government's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial question" about whether the denial of a motion for a protective order is immediately appealable under M

rnment's position going to be? You will note that Judge Marra said yesterday that there is a "substantial ques

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

NS Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 26.1, Intervenor/Appellants hereby certify that the following persons 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

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra, DE188:3-4, resulted from the efforts of the civ

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

was at issue during the plea/settlement negotiations between his attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wit

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

ssed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perhnan jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme

sue during the plea/settlement negotiations between the targets' attorneys and the government. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants to enhance their case through the mechanism of acquiring the target's attorney's communications wi

. The prior civil discovery order relied upon by Judge Marra resulted from the efforts of the civil litigants

herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman v. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918), and, contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's exercise of Perlman jurisdiction in this case. While the underlying CVRA action was comme

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

be disclosed to plaintiffs. Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFT

o. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, through undersigned counsel, hereby certifies that the following persons 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

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

by Magistrate Judge Linnea Johnson in a discovery order entered in a parallel civil lawsuit, Jane Doe # 2'. Jeffrey Epstein, Case No. 08-80893-CIV- MARRA." (DE 188 at 3). This Court's decision to turn over the correspondence does not break new ground. Indeed, if anything, it would be new ground to hol

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

UTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE I AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs

be disclosed to plaintiffs. Opposition at 2-3. Intervenors did not, however, ignore controlling Supreme Court precedent, for the simple reason that Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009), does not affect the intervenors' ability to take an appeal from this Court's disclosure order. There are two EFT