Epstein Secrets

E DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205363 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possib

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

E DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs 1. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant tc INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDINWCPPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00205343 representing a client under federal investigation have an obligation to secure the best possib

federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.' Adkins g Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th 2007), quoting Trammel I United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 41001s that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situat

.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) B

ES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appe

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) B

ES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appe

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) B

ES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appe

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth." Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

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

r was to provide the courts with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis . . . and to leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996), the Supreme Court explored the considerations which g

.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM JANE DOE NO. 1, JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (April 18, 2014) B

ES OF AMERICA, Defendant, ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants. Appe

would achieve a `public good transcending the normally predominant principle of utilizing all rational means for ascertaining truth.' Id. (quoting Trammel, 445 U.S. at 50, 100 S. Ct. at 912). The Supreme Court has identified several considerations relevant to whether a court should recognize an eviden

E I and JANE DOE 2, 1. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING BY LIMITED INTERVENORS BLACK, WEINBERG, LEFKOWITZ, AND EPSTEIN The limited intervenors Black, Weinberg, Lefkowtiz, and Epstein re-file this reply, which is identical to the reply that wa

ivilege," and to provide the court "with the flexibility to develop rules of privilege on a case-by-case basis, and leave the door open to change." Trammel, 445 U.S. at 47. Whatever the circumstances may be in other cases in the future, the facts of this case, when "interpreted in the light of reason an