Epstein Secrets

y 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court below, as well as in parallel civil court

00209366 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would b

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209357 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

ay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court below, as well as in parallel civil court

00209578 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would b

ane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell, Esq. Attorney for Appellees C-2 of 2 EFTA00209569 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ii INTRODUCTION 1 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 3 The Epstein Investigation and the Non-

ssee. for appellants. Hunton & Williams LLP, and Marty Steinberg and Jeffrey W. Gutchess; Ross & Girten

ION OR WITHDRAWAL. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District. Harold E. WOLFE, Jr., et al., Appellants, v. Jeffrey T. FOREMAN, et al., Appellees. No. 3D10-3055. I July 17, 2013. Synopsis Background: Partner in a limited liability company (LLC) brought abuse of process and malicious pros

the existence of cancer, the personal testimony of the lay sufferer is entitled to no weight...... 4I Furthermore, as the Supreme Court found in Weinberger v. Hynson, Westeott and Dunning, Ine.,43: (FDA's] strict and demanding standards, barring anecdotal evidence indicating that doctors "believe" in

Adam Augustine Caner, Law Office of Adam A. Carter, Washington, DC, for Appellant. Neil Matthew Corwin, U.S. Attorney's Office, New York, NY, for Appellees. Before: and ROGERS, Circuit Judges, SIIIMnior Circuit Judge. JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. "1 This case was considered on the record from O 2007 Thom