Epstein Secrets

and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to respond in opp

PPORT OF MOTION TO INTERVENE OF ROY BLACK. MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jan

f 27 claiming the protection has voluntarily disclosed work product to a party not covered by the work-product doctrine." United States v. Ary, 518 F.3d 775, 783 (10th Cir. 2008). Perhaps recognizing the difficulty inherent in its position under these well-recognized general principles, the Governme

perjury by falsely denying memory or knowledge of an event. See, e.g., United States v. Alberti, 568 F.2d 617, 625 (2d Cir. 1977); United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923, 926, 929 (2d Cir. 1973); Forde, 740 F. Supp. 2d at 410-11. Viewing the question and answer "in the context of the line of questionin

of fairness and decency would be offended were judicial processes invoked to obtain a conviction against the accused." United States v. Schmidt, 105 F.3d 82,91 (2d Cir. 1997) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). "Such outrageous or conscience shocking behavior involves egregious invasion

son, 599 F.2d 1149 (2d Cir. 1979) 78 United States v. Wedd, No. 15 Cr. 616 (KBF), 2016 WL 1055737 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2016) 271 United States v. Weiner, 479 F.2d 923 (2d Cir. 1973) 187 United States v. Werner, 620 F.2d 922 (2d Cir. 1980) 205, 206, 208, 223 United States v. Wey, No. 15 Cr. 611

run.") (citing Falter, 23 F.3d at 425-26). And other circuits have emphasized this distinction in the context of Section 3283. Leo Sure Chief, 438 F.3d, at 922-25; Jeffries, 405 F.3d 685. Read together, the Second Circuit's decisions in Weingarten, Vernon, Enterprise, and Falter establish that Cong