Epstein Secrets

11 Case Name Rothstein Rosenfelt:II Adler, PA Case Numbers Manning Document Number:=t Docket Tear Er Pawn Motion to Appear pro lime vice by MartnCi Weinberg Filed by Interested Pay Jeffrey Efacin (Attachments. o ( I ) Proposed Order) (Nerwinh, Ronald) The following domina(t) are associated with this tran

P.A. Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-BKC-REIR CHAPTER 11 EX PARTE ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE This matter was considered without hearing on Martin G. Weinberg's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case pursuant to Local Rules 2090-1(B)(2) and 9013-l(C)(9). The Court having reviewed the Motion and good cau

opy of the Motion to Appear Pro Vice of Martin G. Weinberg of the firm Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., was served

tted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant designates RONALD G. NE1W1RT14, ESQ., of FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A., who is qualified to practice in this Court

11 Case Name Rothstein Rosenfelt:II Adler, PA Case Numbers Manning Document Number:=t Docket Tear Er Pawn Motion to Appear pro lime vice by MartnCi Weinberg Filed by Interested Pay Jeffrey Efacin (Attachments. o ( I ) Proposed Order) (Nerwinh, Ronald) The following domina(t) are associated with this tran

opy of the Motion to Appear Pro Vice of Martin G. Weinberg of the firm Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., was served

P.A. Debtor. CASE NO. 09-34791-BKC-REIR CHAPTER 11 EX PARTE ORDER ADMITTING ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE This matter was considered without hearing on Martin G. Weinberg's Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice in this case pursuant to Local Rules 2090-1(B)(2) and 9013-l(C)(9). The Court having reviewed the Motion and good cau

tted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, First Circuit, Second Circuit, Third Circuit; Fourth Circuit, Fifth Circuit, Sixth Circuit, Ninth Circuit, and Eleventh Circuit. 3. Movant designates RONALD G. NE1W1RT14, ESQ., of FOWLER WHITE BURNETT, P.A., who is qualified to practice in this Court

llants ON APPEAL FROM AN ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 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

, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 11 Page C-1 of 2 EFTA00209658 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 3 of 75 16. Weinberg, Martin 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Attorney for Intervenor/Appellants Page C-2 of 2 EFTA00209659 Case: 13

e Fourth Circuit found jurisdiction based on Perlman in a civil case, Mezu v. Morgan State University, 495 Fed. Appx. 286, 289 (4th Cir. 2012); the Ninth Circuit has applied Perlman in a case arising under 28 U.S.C. §2255, United States v. Gonzalez, 669 F.3d 974, 977 n.2 (9th Cir. 2012), and in a civil case,

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

peaching statements that would have been subject to disclosure if the investigator had testified about them. **2166 The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while acknowledging that the trial court's ruling constituted a `very lim- ited and seemingly judicious restriction,' 501 F.2d, at 151, nevertheles

evant to the parties claims and defenses, reasoning that the quasi-privilege for tax returns had not been expressly recognized within the Circuit); Weiner v. Bache Halsey Stuart, Inc., 76 F.R.D. 624, 627 (S.D.Fla.1977) (holding that no privilege attaches to tax returns and that their discoverability t

ment clearly has prior knowledge of documents that it gave to Epstein. Here, then – as the magistrate judge properly held relying on an instructive Ninth Circuit opinion (not discussed by Epstein) -- the “existence and location of the documents . . . are a ‘foregone conclusion’ and [Epstein] . . . adds littl

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

is ca- pacity as District Attorney for San Francisco County, et aL, Defendants- Appellees. Nos. 82-4427, 83-2581. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 12, 1984. Decided Sept. 3, 1986. Citizen and organizations promoting voting rights of Americans with ethnic backgrou