Epstein Secrets

V-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the he

MENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FO

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that m

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

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice °feistier undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that m

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

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that m

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and

w. EFTA00301919 Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, thereby creating a self-incriminating record that

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

vance of the law. Id. at 524. Judge Vinson agreed with Reichhold that the privilege was necessary to protect an organization or individual from the Hobson's choice of either undertaking an aggressive investigation and correcting dangerous conditions, "thereby creating a self-incriminating record that

ack. BY MR. SCAROLA: Q. Okay. Who else? A. Mr. Marty Weinberger. Mr. Alan Dershowitz. Mr. Jay Lefkowi

Fifth Amendment privilege has an honest explanation that would defeat civil liability (while simultaneously incriminating him), he is faced with a Hobson's choice; meaning he can suffer the risk of an adverse inference or, alternatively, he can provide sworn testimony that may be used against him at a