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

nt is also admitted 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

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

nt is also admitted 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

o Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.1 For purposes of this memorandum, those intervening parties will be separated into four "groups." A. Group 1: Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Letkowitz The first group contains attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection

ng parties will be separated into four "groups." A. Group 1: Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Letkowitz The first group contains attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection with a federal criminal investigation. The three moved for "limited" interve

nt right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. at 980 (citing Palmieri v. New York, 779 F.

o Fed. R. Civ. P. 24.1 For purposes of this memorandum, those intervening parties will be separated into four "groups." A. Group 1: Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz The first group contains attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection

ng parties will be separated into four "groups." A. Group 1: Attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz The first group contains attorneys Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Leflcowitz, who all represented Jeffrey Epstein in connection with a federal criminal investigation. The three moved for "limited" interve

ent right of access, and the courts denied such access. In Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. I Chiles Power Supply, Inc., 332 F.3d 976 (6th Cir. 2003), the Sixth Circuit similarly recognized that "confidential settlement communications are a tradition in this country." Id. at 980 (citing Palmieri I New York, 779 F.2

ess concerns" are implicated by a seven-month period of pretrial detention); United States v. Melendez-Carrions, 790 F.2d 984, 1008 (2d Cir. 1986) (Feinberg, J. concurring) ("[G]eneral requirements of due process compel us to draw the line [of permissible pretrial detention] well short of Q eight months

ment ... is only an accusation, nothing more. It is not proof of guilt or anything else. The defendant therefore starts out with a clean slate."); Sixth Circuit: ("The indictment ... does not even raise any suspicion of guilt."). The government did not provide one single document to the court to back up it