Epstein Secrets

12/2011 fa REPLY to Response to Motion rein MOTION to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz filed by Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Martin G. Weinberg. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/12/2011) 05/16/2011 El RESPONSE in Opposition rel2 MOTION to Intervene MOTION for Sanctions Jane Doe #1 and Ja

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00177814 already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fi

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 Lefkowitz represented by Jacqueline Perczek Black Srebnick Komspan &Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 3

prelude to the full unfettered exercise of their conferral rights at a time that will enable the victims to exercise those rights meaningfully. See BP Products North America, supra at *14 ("Section 3771(c)(1) requires government officials to use best efforts to give victims notice of their rights under subsection (1), i

t with the *226 defense by decid- ing after two years that it wanted a new ex- pert. Id. The court also denied as premature Fell's motion to exclude Weiner's testi- mony, holding that the nature and scope of Webees anticipated rebuttal testimony was unclear but that, even without interviewing Fell, hi

factors concerning sentencing." Id. Accordingly, the court declined to rule on admissibility prior to the government's disclosure of the scope of Weiner's projected testimony. Pursuant to the court's April 7 2005 or- der, Wetzel interviewed Fell and prepared a report explaining his findings. Fell, 2

ictims a right to approve or disapprove a proposed plea in advance or to participate in plea negotiations." In re Dean on remand as United States'. BP Products North America, Mc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 655, 727 (S.D. Tex. 2009). Instead, "[t]he purpose of the reasonable right to confer is for victims to provide information to

nted 6:22 wasn't 28:21 way 8:23 9:9 10:5,16 10:19 11:4 13:16 14:10 19:23 25:1 25:18 27:3,4 28:22 28:23 ways 30:18 wealthy 32:13 weigh 26:11 Weinberg 2:17 4:16 4:16 Weiss 2:12 wel17:10 8:20 10:22 11:12,12,13,13 12:17 13:16 14:11 15:7 16:18 17:15 17:23 18:10,11 33:24 35:12,19,20 36:5 39:4 4

ng its broad discretion." Id. at 395. In Dean, the government sought and obtained an ex pane order permitting it to negotiate a plea agreement with BP Products North America, without first consulting with the victims, individuals injured and survivors of those killed in a refinery explosion. A plea agreement was ultimat