Epstein Secrets

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

ments for dismissal: first, that this Court lacks jurisdiction over such an interlocutory appeal in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Mohawk Industries, Inc.'. Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009) (attorney-client privilege ruling not immediately appealable; any injury can be addressed at conclusion of case)

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

sponsibility [to police prejudgment tactics of litigants] if the appellate courts do not repeatedly intervene to second-guess prejudgment rulings." Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100, 106 (2009) (internal citations omitted). This Court has repeatedly explained its reluctant to grant a stay pending appeal

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

pstein's claim below that a denial of an assertion of privilege can be immediately appealed, the Supreme Court has recently concluded otherwise. In Mohawk Industries, Inc.' Carpenter, 130 S. Ct. 599 (2009), the Supreme Court affirmed this Circuit and rejected an effort by a defendant to take an interlocutory appeal of