Epstein Secrets

12/2011 fa REPLY to Response to Motion rein MOTION to Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz filed by Roy Black, Jay Lefkowitz, Martin G. Weinberg. (Perczek, Jacqueline) (Entered: 05/12/2011) 05/16/2011 El RESPONSE in Opposition rel2 MOTION to Intervene MOTION for Sanctions Jane Doe #1 and Ja

f Supplemental Authority of the United States Supreme Court (Doc. 163); and Reply in Support of Supplemental Briefing By Limited Intervenors Black, Weinberg, Leticowitz, and Epstein (Doc. 169). 4 EFTA00177814 already addressed the issue in Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(0 and Fed. R. Evid. 410 and did not see fi

EDT 2 of 16 Roy Black Black, Srebnick, Komspan &Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite1300 Miami, FL 33131 305-371-6421 intervenor Martin G. Weinberg J ntervenor Jay Lefkowitz represented by Jacqueline Perczek Black Srebnick Komspan &Stumpf 201 S Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 3

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges." Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

spondence [DE 51]; the government's response to the motion [DE 60]; petitioners' reply to the government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the m

above prescriptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Leficowitz [160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], seeking the continued suppression

13 Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidence."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19,116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47,100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whcn

.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

F.2d at 1004. Although Congress empowered the federal courts through Rule 501 to "continue the evolutionary development of testimonial privileges," Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 910 (1980), we disfavor newly minted privileges, which "contravene the fundamental principle that the public has

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

, 682 N.W.2d 578 (Minn. 2004) 43 State v. Boggs, 741 N.W.2d 492 (Iowa 2007) 42 State v. Trujillo, 93 N.M. 724, 605 P.2d 232 (N.M.1980) 43 Trammel v. United 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. Castan

spondence [DE 51]; the government's response to the motion [DE 60]; petitioners' reply to the government's response [DE 74]; intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz's opposition to the motion, including motion for protective order [DE 160, 161]; intervenor Jeffrey Epstein's opposition to the m

above prescriptions within TWENTY (20) DAYS from the date of entry of this order. 4. The motion for protective order submitted by Intervenors Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz [160, 161] and motion for protective order submitted by limited Intervenor Jeffrey Epstein [162], seeking the continued suppression u

Page 8 of 11 interests to outweigh the need for probative evidenc,e."Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 9-19, 116 S. Ct.1923, 135 L.Ed. 2d 337 (1996); Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47, 100 S. Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Recognizing that there is a presumption against privileges which may be overcome only whe

TAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby reque

JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 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

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to

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

l courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges.'" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The Supreme Court has recognized that "Rules 410 and 11(e)(6) `creat[e], in effect, a privilege of the defendant . . . ."'

JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL 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

TAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby reque

al courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.3d 1324, 1328 (11th Cir. 2007), quoting Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 47 (1980). The "central feature" of Rule 410 "is that the accused is encouraged candidly to discuss his or her situation in order to