Epstein Secrets

and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opp

PPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jan

stitutional considerations" that supposedly undergird plea bargain, the simple fact remains that "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain." Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977). The Court should not exalt to privileged status negotiations that merely serve the administrative convenience

ing the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. ,ill e• A et• 11 1 1 M ( ( Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209529

appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein"). At issu

arn about negotiation on the subject of notifications to crime victims. 4 It is well settled that "there is no constitution right to plea bargain." Weatherford I Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 561 (1977). A copy of the victims' pleading is attached to this response at Attachment B. 6 Epstein has never contested th

E I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that wa

sentence that will be imposed."' Plea negotiations implicate significant constitutional and policy considerations. The plaintiffs argue that under Weatherford Bursey, "there is no constitutional right to plea bargain," but that is not what the case held. What the Supreme Court actually said is that there