Epstein Secrets

y 2, 2011, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: S Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. mom Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fowler White Burnett PA _Pi • 29 EFTA00208012

, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. mom Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fowler White Burn

that violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not block judicial review. See, e.g., United States' Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. 1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States' Hyles, 521 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir.

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

States, 445 U.S. 40 (1980) 29, 45 United States v. Al-Arian, 514 F.3d 1184 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 887(2008) 16 United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832 (5th Cir.1998) 16 vi EFTA00209665 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/05/2013 Page: 10 of 75 United States v. Cartwright, 413 F.3d

Florida Bar No. 126088 [email protected] JACKIE PERCZEIC, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 042201 jperczek@ rovblack. corn On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. 14 EFTA00211556 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 385 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/22/2016 Page 15 of 15 By: Is/ MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. Ma

ck. corn On behalf of Jeffrey Epstein MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C. 14 EFTA00211556 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM

ct law. Under these principles, if a defendant lives up to his end of the bargain, the government is bound to perform its promises." United States Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1998). Mr. Epstein has fully performed each and every one of his obligations under the nonprosecution agreement. To

3131 Telephone (305) 371-6421 Fax (305) 358-2006 By: _/s/ ROY BLACK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 126088 JACKIE PERCZEK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 042201 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ■. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 Office: (617) 227-3700 Fax: (617) 338-9538 By: _/s/ MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ESQ. Massachusetts Bar

PERCZEK, ESQ. Florida Bar No. 042201 MARTIN G. WEINBERG, ■. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116

t law. Under these principles, if a defendant lives up to his end of the bargain, the government is bound to perform its promises." United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1998). The potential rescission remedy also has serious implications for Mr. Epstein's constitutional rights, as "[

overnment Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 i i FL 33131 ia Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 B° sto MI n MA 02116 Joseph L. Ackerman, Jr. Fowler White Burnett PA 777 S. Flagler Drive, West Tower, Suite 901

Boulevard Suite 1300 i i FL 33131 ia Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 B° sto MI n MA

hat violation are embodied in an NPA. The mere fact that something is covered in an NPA does not block judicial review. See, e.g., United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 834-35 (5th Cir. 1998) (reviewing issue of government's obligations under a NPA); United States v. Myles, 521 F.3d 946, 952 (8th Cir

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

F.3d 1184, 1190 (11th Cir. 2008)("Due process requires the government to adhere to the promises it has made in a plea agreement"); United States v. Castaneda, 162 F.3d 832, 835-36 (5th Cir. 1998)("Nonprosecution agreements, like plea bargains, are contractual in nature, and are therefore interpreted in a

the existence of cancer, the personal testimony of the lay sufferer is entitled to no weight...... 4I Furthermore, as the Supreme Court found in Weinberger v. Hynson, Westeott and Dunning, Ine.,43: (FDA's] strict and demanding standards, barring anecdotal evidence indicating that doctors "believe" in

ed States a Oregon, 718 F2d 299, 908 & n. 5 (9th Cir.1983). The district court erred in its ruling that it lacked juris- diction. See, e.g., Jett a Castaneda, 578 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1978) (felt). 1101 We have recognized, however, that as a general proposition, a district court has no "power to moni