Epstein Secrets

[email protected] (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston. MA 0211

1 (305) 358-2006 Jay P. Leflcowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: [email protected] (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston. MA 02116 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley J. Edwards 9 EFTA00208681

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered — Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

ackie Perczek, Esq. Jay P. Leflcowitz Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epste

k, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Jay P. Leflcowitz Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epste

lating to alleged indiscretion within the department). • Any attorney-client privilege is subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985). The victims intend to argue that the crime-fraud-misconduct exception applies on the facts of this case.' • A

pellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

k Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5 Marino I. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) 12 Mezul. Mor

E TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

th Cir. 1987) 13 In re Perrigo Co., 128 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.1997) 19 In re Professionals Direct Ins. Co., 578 F.3d 432 (6th Cir. 2009) 19 In re Sealed Case, F.3d 2013 WL 2120157 13 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013) Lafler. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012) 5 Marino I. Ortiz, 484 U.S. 301 (1988) 12 Mezul. Mor

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

1987) 53 In re MTSG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2012) 32, 33 In re RDM Sports Group, Inc., 277 B.R. 415 (N.D. Ga. 2002) 34, 40 In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C.Cir. 2013) 54 In re Six Grand Jury Witnesses, 979 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1992), cert. denied sub nom. XYZ Corp. v. United States,

oy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Gerald Lefcourt, Michael Tien, Guy Lewis, Lilly

om (305) 37106421 Jay P. Lefkowitz Kirkland & Ellis, LLP 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022 Email: [email protected] (212) 446-4970 Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Email: [email protected] (617) 338-9538 Criminal Defense Counsel for Jeffrey Epstein /s/ Bradley

). Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered - Any privilege would be subject to a crime-fraud-misconduct exception. See In re Sealed Case, 754 F.2d 395, 399 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (applying exception to attorney-client privilege); Cox v. Administrator U.S. Steel & Carnie, 17 F.3d 1386, 1422

e itself. CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should deny plaintiffs' motion to dismiss. Respectfully submitted, hi Roy Black hi Martin G. Weinberg Roy Black Martin G. Weinberg Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Stumpf Boston, Massachusetts 02116 201 South Biscayne Boule

fense attorneys — appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg — filed motions to intervene for the limited pur

ognized under Rule 501 is not a bar to Perlman jurisdiction. The controlling factor is whether the appellants assert a right or privilege, see In re Sealed Case, F.3d , 2013 WL 2120157 at *4 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013)("The Perlman s28 doctrine permits appeals from some decisions that are not final but allow

, /s/ Roy Black Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, Massachusetts 02116 Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants CERTIFICA

Suite 1300 Miami, Florida 33131 /s/ Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 B

arties to the underlying action. See 2 As recently as May, 2013, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the continuing validity of the Perlman doctrine in In re Sealed Case, 716 F.3d 603 (D.C. Cir. 2013)(although finding a different standard applicable in that case), citing inter alia, this Court's decision in In re Gr

f of their client to resolve the ongoing criminal investigation of him. Both Mr. Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the use and disclosure of the settlement/plea negotiation co

defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed motions to intervene

ognized under Rule 501 is not a bar to Perlman jurisdiction. The controlling factor is whether the appellants assert a right or privilege, see In re Sealed Case, F.3d , 2013 WL 2120157 at *4 (D.C.Cir. March 5, 2013)("The Perlman doctrine permits appeals from some decisions that are not final but allow the