Epstein Secrets

pellants INTERVENORS' RESPONSE TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

k Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209465 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's e

E TO MOTION TO DISMISS NON-PARTY INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL Roy Black Jackie Perczek Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12/2013 Page: 2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND 1 II. THIS COURT H

Stumpf 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Martin G. Weinberg EFTA00209534 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 07/12

stein nor intervenor-attorneys are parties to the action, this Court, for the reasons addressed herein, has jurisdiction to hear their appeal under Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7 (1918); contrary to plaintiffs' arguments, nothing in Mohawk Industries, Inc.. Carpenter, 558 U .S. 100 (2009), undercuts the Court's e

tes Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Jane DOE NO. 1, Jane Doe No. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees, 1. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13-12923. April 18, 2014. Background: Alleged minor victims of federal sex crimes brought action aga

ATES of America, Defendant. Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants. No. 13

ey argue that the Perlman doctrine, which per- mits a claimant of a privilege to appeal a non-final judgment, applies only to grand jury subpoenas. Perlman I. United States, 247 U.S. 7, 38 S.Ct. 417, 62 L.Ed. 950 (1918). Second, they argue that a decision of the Supreme Court, Mo- hawk Industries, Inc. I. Carpenter, 55