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

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to the days of se

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

nc., 399 F.3d 391 (1st Cir. 2005) 54 *Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976, 980 (6th Cir. 2003) 32,33, 38,40 Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947) 14, 20, 21 Holt-Orsted v. City of Dickson, 641 F.3d 230 (6th Cir. 2011) 51, 52, 55 In re Air Crash Near Cali,

cqueline Perczek, Roy Eric Black, Black Srebnick Kornspan & Stumpf, Miami, FL; Jay P. Lefkowitz, PRO HAC VICE, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY; Martin G. Weinberg, PRO HAC VICE, Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., Boston, MA. For Martin G. Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, Intervenors: Jacqueline Perczek, Black Srebnick Kornspa

, Kirkland & Ellis, LLP, New York, NY; Martin G. Weinberg, PRO HAC VICE, Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., Boston,

t from and broader than the attorney-client privilege." United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238, 95 S. Ct. 2160, 45 L. Ed. 2d 141 (1975) (citing Hickman, 329 U.S. at 508). In fact, the Eighth Circuit went on to consider the application of the work product doctrine and concluded that it did not apply

TAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby reque

JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

substantial likelihood that the Eleventh Circuit will agree. Indeed, the Court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to the days of se

ssue in this matter. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the requested stay pending appeal should be granted. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston Massachusetts 02116 /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South

INTRODUCTION Appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Co

cannot be the law and is certainly unsound policy. Indeed, the district court's opinion creates an incentive for attorneys not to do precisely what Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495 (1947), was intended to encourage attorneys to do: reduce facts, ideas, and opinions to writing. A return to the days of se

has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 4. And third, in their "Motion to Use Correspondence To Prove Violations of The Crime Victim 's Rights Act And To Hav

pposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real par

vid. 804(b)(1)? the better reasoned conclusion is that Rule 612 does apply at depositions. 1. The Work Product Doctrine In the now famous case of Hickman 11. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 1 L.Ed. 451 (1947), the Supreme Court re- cognized the work product doctrine. The doctrine creates a "pro

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

notes had in the first place before reaching the `waiver' issue. Accordingly, and because I do not believe that the ork-product *243 doctrine of Hickman Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L. . 451 (1947), can be extended wholesale from its historic role as a limita- tion on the nonevidentiary m

03/28/2011 Page 3 of 3 We also certify that a copy of the foregoing was sent via separate email to all counsel of record. Respectfully submitted, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Office: (617) 227-3700 Fax: (617) 338-9538 By r IM 1 ARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. Massachusetts Bar

ntervenor attomcyJ ay Lefkowitz within the next few days, as soon as a certificate of good standing from the New York Bar arrives. Attorneys Black, Weinberg and Lcfkowitz do not seek intervention to litigate whether the Crime Victims' Rights Act was violated and if so, against whom a remedy is appropriat

f litigation.' United States' Nobles, 422 U.S. 225, 238 (1975). The work-product doctrine applies in civil and criminal litigation. Id. at 236. In Hickman' Taylor, the Supreme Court described the policy behind the doctrine protecting the opinion work-product of lawyers. The Court explained that a lawye