Epstein Secrets

y 4. Cassell, Paul G. 5. Edwards, Bradley J. 6. Epstein, Jeffrey 7. Ferrer, Wifredo A. 8. Howell, Jay 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l• 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209356 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court below, as well as in parallel civil court

00209366 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would b

MERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 [email protected] Paul

ie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 (305) 37106421 (305) 358-2006 Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC 20 PARK PLZ STE 1000 Boston, MA 02116-4301 (617) 227-3700 Paul G. Cassell 5 EFTA00209457

ppellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein") challengi

LACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Ave., Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301 (954) 524-2820 [email protected] Paul

on July 16, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. Martin G Weinberg, P.C. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 1 EFTA00209506

Black, Srebnick, Komspan & Stumpf, P.A. Martin G Weinberg, P.C. /s/ Paul G. Cassell Paul G. Cassell 1 E

pellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants REPLY IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00209494 TABL

ing the Court's CM/ECF system: Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. ,ill e• A et• 11 1 1 M ( ( Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209529

appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein"). At issu

MOTION FOR STAY OF DISTRICT COURT DISCOVERY ORDER PENDING APPEAL AND REQUEST FOR AN EXPEDITED RULING Bradley J. Edwards Paul G. Cassell FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING S. J. Quinney College of Law at EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. the University of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1

ay 9. IMPIIPIS 10. Lefkowitz, Jay 11. Perczek, Jackie 12. libuilm.1 13. ra.c....1.„ , ‘,1„ 1. 14. Sloman, Jeffrey 15. 101010MRNI,PIIIIMP 16. Weinberg, Martin C-1 of 2 EFTA00209568 17. Doe No. 1, Jane 18. Doe No. 2, Jane Note: As they have in the court below, as well as in parallel civil court

00209578 Procedural History Regarding Releasing the Correspondence On April 7, 2011, Epstein's criminal defense attorneys — appellants Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz — filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would b

AL., Plaintiffs-Appellees Defendant-Appellee Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFEE, WEISSING EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appell

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

nd by an abuse of the discovery process. II. THE PLEA NEGOTIATIONS IN THIS CASE ARE PROPERLY SUBJECT TO A COMMON-LAW PRIVILEGE UNDER RULE 501 AND JAFFEE The plaintiffs argue that plea negotiations are "merely" an "administrative convenience" that this Court "tolerates" to reduce its "workload." [DE