Epstein Secrets

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

orce of the serious issues raised in this case. 14 EFTA00583752 in an uninhibited fashion" is even more important. See Lake Utopia Paper Ltd. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928, 930 (2d Cir. 1979). When a defendant is facing loss of liberty, he has an even greater "need for confidentiality and trust between p

has an interest in the validity of the non-prosecution agreement . . . ." Jane Doe I and Jane Doe 2's Response To Motion To Intervene of Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, and Jay Lefkowitz [DE 78] at 4. And third, in their "Motion to Use Correspondence To Prove Violations of The Crime Victim 's Rights Act And To Hav

pposition to the intervention of attorneys Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz that Mr. Epstein "is the real par

itable to poker players in a high-stakes game than adversaries attempting to arrive at a just solution of a civil dispute." Lake Utopia Paper Ltd.'. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979). Lake Utopia involved the Second Circuit's Civil Appeals Management Plan, which called for parties to engage in a conf

t with the *226 defense by decid- ing after two years that it wanted a new ex- pert. Id. The court also denied as premature Fell's motion to exclude Weiner's testi- mony, holding that the nature and scope of Webees anticipated rebuttal testimony was unclear but that, even without interviewing Fell, hi

factors concerning sentencing." Id. Accordingly, the court declined to rule on admissibility prior to the government's disclosure of the scope of Weiner's projected testimony. Pursuant to the court's April 7 2005 or- der, Wetzel interviewed Fell and prepared a report explaining his findings. Fell, 2

itable to poker players in a high-stakes game than adversaries attempting to arrive at a just solution of a civil dispute." Lake Utopia Paper Ltd.'. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979). Lake Utopia involved the Second Circuit's Civil Appeals Management Plan, which called for parties to engage in a conf

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

privilege where litigants can "rely on the confidential treatment of everything that transpires during mediation . . . ." Lake Utopia Paper Ltd. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpik

rguments advanced by proposed intervenors Black, Weinberg, and Lefkowitz in their motion to intervene and i

privilege where litigants can "rely on the confidential treatment of everything that transpires during mediation . . . ." Lake Utopia Paper Ltd. v. Connelly Containers, Inc., 608 F.2d 928 (2d Cir.1979); Folb v. Motion Picture Ind. Pension & Health Plans, 16 1.SIFtip.2d 1164, 1173 1998); Sheldone v. Pennsylvania Turnpik