Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta01128695DOJ Data Set 9Other

Case: 13-12923

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta01128695
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Page: 1 of 5 Nos. 13-12923, 13-12926, 13-12928 IN THE tiniteb ibtateo Court of appeato FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT JANE DOE NO. 1 AND JANE DOE NO. 2, Plaintiffs-Appellees v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors-Appellants MOTION TO POSTPONE DUE DATE FOR FILING APPELLEE BRIEF UNTIL COURT RULES 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 Paul G. Cassell S. J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E., Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Attorneys for Plaintiffs-Appellees Jane Doe No.1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA01128695 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Page: 2 of 5 MOTION TO POSTPONE DUE DATE FOR FILING APPELLEE BRIEF UNTIL COURT RULES ON PENDING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION INTRODUCTION This case involves a discovery order concerning certain correspondence that the district court has ordered the Government to produce to two crime victims, appellees Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (hereinafter "the victims"). On July 2, 2013, this Court docketed the appeal of limited intervenors-appellants' Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin Weinberg (collectively referred to as "Epstein") challenging that discovery order. On July 2, 2013, the victims filed a motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, contending that this Court did not have jurisdiction to review the discovery order under Mohawk Industries v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (2009). On July 12, 2013, Epstein responded in opposition to the motion to dismiss, and on July 16, 2013, the victim's replied in support of the motion to dismiss. On August 5, 2013, even though no briefing schedule had been set by this Court, Epstein filed his opening brief on the merits. The Clerk's Office has advised the victims that their brief on the merits is now due in thirty days, i.e., on September 5, 2013. 2 EFTA01128696 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Page: 3 of 5 Under Local Rule 31-1(d), if the Court had raised the jurisdictional question on its own motion, that question would have automatically postponed the date for the victims to file any response brief until the Court determined the jurisdictional question. The victims respectfully assert that they have raised a substantial jurisdictional issue and that they should not have a deadline to file their brief on the merits until this Court resolves that issue or otherwise determines that it wants the victims to file a brief on the merits. Accordingly, the victims move this Court to postpone the deadline for filing their brief on the merits until the Court resolves the jurisdiction issue or otherwise sets a schedule directing the victims to file their appellee brief. POSITION OF THE PARTIES Epstein objects to the Court considering the motion to dismiss without also considering the merits of the appeal. Epstein notes that he has filed his merits brief and does not object to the court ordering expedited briefing on the remaining briefs (response brief and reply brief) and an expedited oral argument schedule. The Government has informed the victims that it does not intend to participate in this appeal. 3 EFTA01128697 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Page: 4 of 5 CONCLUSION For all the foregoing reasons, the Court should postpone the deadline for the victims to file their merits brief until it resolves the jurisdictional question or otherwise directs the victims to file a brief on the merits. DATED: August 8, 2013 Respectfully Submitted. Paul G. Cassell S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah 332 S. 1400 E. Salt Lake City, UT 84112 Telephone Facsimile: E-Mail: and Bradley J. Edwards FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, P.L. 425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 Telephon Facsimile Florida Bar No.: 542075 E-mail: Attorneys for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 4 EFTA01128698 Case: 13-12923 Date Filed: 08/08/2013 Page: 5 of 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE The foregoing document was served on August 8, 2013, on the following using the Court's CM/ECF system: Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia Assistant U.S. Attorneys 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Attorneys for the Government Roy Black, Esq. Jackie Perczek, Esq. Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A. 201 South Biscayne Boulevard Suite 1300 Miami, FL 33131 Martin G. Weinberg Martin G. Weinberg, PC 20 PARK PLZ STE 1000 Boston, MA 02116-4301 Paul G. Cassell 5 EFTA01128699

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free - The Daily Beast

Jeffrey Epstein, Billionaire Pedophile, Goes Free - The Daily Beast Page 1 of 4 THE DAILY BEAST READ THIS SKIP THAT BLOGS & STORIES Billionaire Pedophile Goes Free PRINT Hedge fund mogul Jeffrey Epstein became a free man Wednesday, five years after he was first accused of sexually abusing underage girls. After months of reporting, The Daily Beast's reveals exclusive details of the investigation and the legal wrangling that saved him from a long prison term. She reports: • Palm Beach's police chief objected to Epstein's "special treatment" and gave The Daily Beast an exclusive look at his nine-hour deposition about the investigation. • Earlier versions of the U.S attorney's charges, including a sealed 53-page indictment, could have landed Epstein in prison for 20 years. • Victims alleged that Epstein molested underage girls from South America. Europe. and the former Soviet republics. including three 12-year-old girls brought over from France as a birthday gift. • The v

4p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Reuters lawsuit alleges Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump raped a woman in 1994

The passage references a filed federal lawsuit directly accusing a former president (Donald Trump) and a convicted financier (Jeffrey Epstein) of rape, providing a concrete legal filing and potential Federal lawsuit filed in California alleging rape by Jeffrey Epstein and Donald Trump in 1994 Email chain includes Reuters reporter David Ingram seeking comment from Epstein The suit was attached to

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

DS9 Document EFTA00429452

1p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown

EFTA Document EFTA01355640

0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Westlaw.

Westlaw. Pagel 749 F.3d 999, 24 Fla. L. Weekly Fed. C 1270 (Cite as: 749 F.3d 999) H United States 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 against the United States alleging violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act ( CVRA) re- lated to the United States Attorney Office's execution of non-prosecution agree- ment with alleged perpetrator. After the victims moved for disclosure of corres- pondence concerning the non-prosecution agreement, the alleged perpetrator and his criminal defense attorneys intervened to assert privilege to prevent the disclos- ure of their plea negotiations. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida Court, No. 9:08-CV-80736-KAM, ordered disclosure. The inter- v

16p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 161 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/17/2012 Page 1 of 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING OF INTERVENORS ROY BLACK, MARTIN WEINBERG, AND JAY LEFKOWITZ IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER CONCERNING PRODUCTION, USE, AND DISCLOSURE OF PLEA NEGOTIATIONS During the hearing on August 12, 2011, the Court directed the proposed intervenors to file additional briefing on their argument that plea negotiations are privileged and not subject to discovery or use as evidence in these proceedings. Proposed intervenors submit the following memorandum of law, which is identical to Parts I and II of the memorandum of law submitted by proposed intervenor Jeffrey Epstein in support of his motion for a protective order and his opposition to the motions of the plaintiffs for production, use,

23p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.