Epstein Data Wiki

Roy Black

Properties2
tagsperson, attorney, defence-counsel, cvra, eleventh-circuit, southern-district-of-florida, palm-beach, 2013, 2014
aliasesRoy Black, Black, Roy

31 min read

Firm as the filings give itBlack, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A., 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Miami, Florida12
How a federal court of appeals styled himNot as counsel but as a party: “ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, JEFFREY EPSTEIN, Intervenors-Appellants,” in Jane Doe No. 1 v. United States, No. 13-12923 (11th Cir.)3
How the clerk’s office styled the appeal”Case Style: Jane Doe v. Roy Black”45
The capacity he signed in”/s/ Roy Black … Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants”: party and counsel on the same signature page16
What the court decided18 April 2014, marked [PUBLISH]: “We AFFIRM the disclosure order and LIFT the stay of the order compelling the United States to disclose the correspondence.”7 On the work-product claim the panel held the district court’s finding that “the intervenors waived any privilege when they voluntarily sent the correspondence to the United States during the plea negotiations” to be “not clearly erroneous”8
Last step recorded hereStay motion filed 24 April 2014, denied 25 April 2014; mandate issued 11 June 201491011
Not established hereAnything he said in any meeting or telephone call except as another party’s document records it; what the correspondence at issue contained; the identity of anyone an investigator approached; whether a petition for rehearing was ever filed

Roy Black is a Miami criminal defence lawyer who acted for Jeffrey Epstein. This page is not about that retainer. It is about the three years in which he stopped being only a lawyer in the case and became a party to it: in April 2011 he moved to intervene in the two victims’ Crime Victims’ Rights Act suit against the United States in order to keep his own letters to the prosecutors out of their hands, in June 2013 he appealed the order that they be disclosed, and on 18 April 2014 the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit decided against him in a published opinion whose caption carries his name.1237

What follows is the record of things he did, taken from the filings and orders themselves rather than from the lists, certificates of service, docket abstracts and privilege-log rows in which his name more usually appears.

Nothing here is a finding of wrongdoing. Black was defence counsel doing a defence counsel’s job, and an adverse ruling is not misconduct. Where the record holds his own answer to something adverse, the answer is printed beside it.

The district-court half of this dispute, Judge Kenneth A. Marra’s orders of 18 June 2013 quoted at length and the wider unsealing history, is set out at Unsealing Decisions in the Epstein Proceedings and is not retold here. This page is the appellate leg.

The appellees, and what this page will not do

The two plaintiffs-appellees are pseudonymous. Their own brief states the reason in a note under the certificate of interested persons: “As they have in the court below, as well as in parallel civil court proceedings, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 proceed by way of pseudonym as victims of child sexual assault.”13 Nothing on this page narrows them.

The district court’s order under appeal carried its own limit. Before placing the correspondence in the open file the petitioners were directed to redact, among other things, “all identifying references or names of individuals other than Epstein relating to uncharged crimes”, the Government having argued that the material described “crimes alleged against Jeffrey Epstein and others for which they were never charged or convicted,” and that the Due Process Clause required it to stay sealed “to protect the reputations of persons who may have been under federal investigation but not charged or convicted.”1415 This page does not name anyone in that class, and does not identify any witness an investigator is recorded as having approached.

April 2011: he makes himself a party

The victims had moved in March 2011 for a finding that the U.S. Attorney’s Office violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, and moved separately to use in that case the correspondence about the non-prosecution agreement which Epstein had produced to them in their civil suits.12 The victims’ brief records what happened next: “On April 7, 2011, two of Epstein’s numerous criminal defense attorneys – appellants Roy Black and Martin Weinberg – filed a motion for limited intervention in the case, arguing that their right to confidentiality in the correspondence would be violated if the victims’ were allowed to use the correspondence. DE 56.”12 Epstein filed his own motion to intervene later, at DE 93, and the intervenors then moved for a protective order.1216

The Eleventh Circuit later described the same step in its own words: “Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys, Roy Black and Martin Weinberg, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the disclosure and use of the correspondence they wrote during plea negotiations. After the district court granted their permissive intervention, Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b), the intervenors moved for protective orders.”16 The grounds were work product; Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; grand jury secrecy; and an invitation to the court to recognise a new common-law privilege for plea negotiations.16

Judge Marra denied the protective order on 18 June 2013. The ordering paragraph names the movants: “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 under seal of correspondence relating to plea discussions between Epstein’s counsel and federal government prosecutorial authorities, are DENIED.”14

Three lawyer-intervenors moved below; two appealed. The ordering paragraph above names Black, Weinberg and Lefkowitz as the intervenors who moved, with Epstein separately as a limited intervenor.14 The appellate papers name a different three: the Eleventh Circuit’s caption, the stay order of 23 September 2013, the order of 25 April 2014 refusing a further stay, the judgment and the mandate all name Black, Weinberg and Epstein and no one else.3171011 Jay Lefkowitz is not an appellant in any of the appellate papers cited here; he appears in the stay motion’s certificate of interested persons as entry 10, on a list which names the appellants themselves and the district judge as well.18

The appeal: jurisdiction, and a stay obtained

“On June 27, 2013, Epstein and his attorneys filed a notice of appeal from the District Court’s denial of efforts of block release of the plea bargain correspondence. DE’s 194-96,” the victims’ brief records, and Judge Marra refused a stay pending that appeal, holding that “intervenors have neither demonstrated a probable likelihood of success on the merits on appeal… nor that the balance of equities weighs heavily in favor of granting a stay.”19 The victims moved to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and on 12 July 2013 the intervenors answered. That response argued that the appeal fell within the Perlman doctrine because the disclosure order ran against the Government rather than against them, that “it is impossible for appellate courts to undo the damage caused by forced disclosure of privileged or confidential communications,” and that “the injury inheres in the disclosure itself.”6 It closes over two conformed signatures, “/s/ Roy Black” and “/s/ Martin G. Weinberg”, above the line “Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants.”6

The opening brief followed on 5 August 2013, filed for all three appellants over the firm’s Miami address. Its cover carries the appellant side as “ROY BLACK ET AL., Intervenors/Appellants.”2 The victims’ answering brief of 30 August 2013 argued that the appellants had never built a record: “At no point, however, did Epstein or his attorneys provide any affidavits or other factual information establishing that the correspondence was confidential. Nor did they provide a privilege log or other description of the materials in question.”12

The appellants asked the court of appeals to freeze the order in the meantime, and got it. On 23 September 2013 a panel of Circuit Judges Dubina, Marcus and Pryor entered a one-page order: “Appellants’ motion to stay the district court’s June 18, 2013, order compelling the disclosure of communications between intervenors and federal prosecutors is GRANTED,” and directed the clerk to calendar the case for oral argument after briefing.17 The disclosure order stayed frozen until the panel lifted the stay the following April.

18 April 2014: the decision

The panel, Circuit Judges William Pryor and Beverly Martin with District Judge Charlene Edwards Honeywell sitting by designation, issued a published opinion, marked [PUBLISH], on 18 April 2014.3 Judge Pryor framed the case in the first paragraph: “This appeal requires us to decide two issues: whether we have jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal by criminal defense attorneys and their client who intervened in a proceeding ancillary to a criminal investigation to claim a privilege that would prevent the disclosure of their plea negotiations; and, if so, whether a privilege bars crime victims from discovering plea negotiations.”20

The intervenors won the first question and lost the second.

On jurisdiction the court applied the Perlman doctrine outside the grand jury context. It recorded that “We have not invoked the Perlman doctrine to exercise jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal outside the context of a grand jury proceeding,” while noting in the next sentence that “we have exercised jurisdiction over interlocutory appeals by claimants of a privilege in some civil proceedings”; it then declined “to draw an arbitrary line,” and held that “[t]he intervenors claim a privilege based on Rule 410, the work-product privilege, and the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel as well as a new common-law privilege for plea negotiations. These claims of privilege, however tenuous, are sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Perlman.”21

On the merits it rejected each ground. Rule 410 “governs the admissibility of plea negotiations, not the discoverability of them,” and in any event Epstein “cannot invoke Rule 410 because he pleaded guilty to state charges based on the same conduct and has not withdrawn those pleas.”8 The work-product claim failed on waiver: “the finding of the district court that the intervenors waived any privilege when they voluntarily sent the correspondence to the United States during the plea negotiations is not clearly erroneous… Even if it shared the common goal of reaching a quick settlement, the United States was undoubtedly adverse to Epstein during its investigation of him for federal offenses, and the intervenors’ disclosure of their work product waived any claim of privilege.”8

The conjunctive argument, that Rule 410, work product and the Sixth Amendment together did what none did alone, the court called a “last-ditch effort,” noting that “[t]he intervenors concede too that the right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment had not yet attached when the correspondence was exchanged,” and concluding: “The ‘conjunctive’ power of three false claims of privilege does not rescue the correspondence from disclosure.”22

It then refused the new privilege, holding that “a prosecutor and target of a criminal investigation do not enjoy a relationship of confidence and trust when they negotiate,” and that recognising one “would upset the balance that Congress struck when it adopted Rule 410.”237 The conclusion is two lines: “We AFFIRM the disclosure order and LIFT the stay of the order compelling the United States to disclose the correspondence.”7

The clerk’s covering memorandum of the same day records the housekeeping: judgment entered under FRAP 36, the mandate to issue later under FRAP 41(b), and the taxation of costs, “Pursuant to Fed.R.App.P. 39, costs taxed equally against appellants and appellees.”4 Its subject line is the one the clerk’s office had used throughout: “Case Style: Jane Doe v. Roy Black.”4

24 and 25 April 2014: one day

Six days after the decision, Black filed a “Time Sensitive Motion for a Stay Pending a Ruling on Intervenors’ Petition for Rehearing.”9 The motion asks the court to continue the stay it had just lifted, and says why the clock mattered: “The government has informed counsel that, absent the continuation of the stay, it will turn over the documents to plaintiffs’ counsel by Friday, May 2, 2014, making this motion time senstive.”9 The intervenors asked for a ruling by that date.9

The argument was that the panel had created a circuit split and that the full court should look at it: the opinion “will drastically reshape the landscape of criminal settlement negotiations and overturn expectations of privacy, confidentiality, and privilege on which criminal defense attorneys have reasonably relied for decades in negotiating with government attorneys on behalf of their clients,” and it “directly conflicted with the Sixth Circuit’s ruling in Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Chiles Power Supply, Inc.”24 On irreparable injury the motion borrows a phrase from the D.C. Circuit: “appeal after final judgment is obviously not adequate in [privilege] cases-the cat is out of the bag.”25

The motion is signed “/s/ Roy Black” for himself and Jackie Perczek at Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, with separate conformed signatures for G. Richard Strafer and Martin G. Weinberg, and the block beneath all three reads: “Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants.”1 The certificate of service on the following sheet is signed “/s/ Roy Black” alone.26 He is, on that page, both the client and the lawyer.

The same panel that had decided the appeal answered the next day, on 25 April 2014, in two lines: “Appellants’ ‘Time Sensitive Motion for a Stay Pending a Ruling on Intervenors’ Petition for Rehearing’ is DENIED.”10

The judgment issued as the mandate on 11 June 2014, the clerk sending it to the district court and noting that a copy of the letter, but not of the decision, went to counsel.115 The electronic notice of that docket entry, whose docket text reads “Mandate issued as to Appellants Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin G. Weinberg”, was forwarded the same afternoon to Epstein, who replied to his other counsel: “when do we find out what it says?”27

Two earlier acts the government’s own papers record

December 2008, the work-release file. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida wrote by hand delivery to a captain of the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office corrections division about inaccuracies it had found in Epstein’s work-release application. The letter’s first paragraph records how the office came to raise them there: “During a recent meeting, Roy Black, one of Mr. Epstein’s attorneys, invited us to share our concerns with PBSO.”28 What the letter went on to say about the employer named on the application is set out at The C.O.U.Q. Foundation and is not repeated here.

November 2005, the investigators. The Palm Beach Police Department’s incident report in case 1-05-000368 records a witness telling the investigating detective that “approximately on November 11, 2005, he was contacted by a private investigator from the Law Office of Roy Black. The investigator had called him to meet with him to ascertain what he was going to tell the police.”29 The witness’s name is blacked out and is not supplied. Later in the same report the detective records telling a representative of Epstein “of the allegations that the private investigators assigned to the case have been portraying themselves as police officers” and that “my cell phone had been called by the private investigators”; the representative “advised he was not aware of that and advised they were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in Miami.”2930

Black’s answer to that is in the record too. An ABC News item of 28 July 2006, preserved in the release as a printout, reports that “Roy Black … said that private investigators were used to investigate the claims made by the young and underage girls who told police they were paid to massage Epstein,” that some girls and their families had reported to police being harassed and followed, and then: “Black said the allegations about the private investigators’ behavior are false and that proof of that was submitted to the state attorney’s office and the grand jury. He also added that the use of private investigators is not unusual in a case when police allege criminal activity.”31

A separate strand, the U.S. Attorney’s Office recording in 2007 an “intent to subpoena Roy Black’s private investigator and steps taken to obtain DOJ authorization,” and log rows describing a motion to quash a grand jury subpoena filed by him, is set out at the Second Supplemental Privilege Log and is not restated here.

Documents

IdentifierWhat it is
EFTA00209632The court’s own slip opinion, No. 13-12923, 18 April 2014, [PUBLISH], 23 sheets plus the clerk’s one-page transmittal. The copy cited throughout this page
EFTA00209806A Westlaw printout of the same opinion — reporter synopsis, headnotes, key numbers, “Most Cited Cases.” The text under the headnotes is the court’s, which is what makes the substitution easy to miss; this page cites the court’s document and not the database’s rendering of it
EFTA01180323”Time Sensitive Motion for a Stay Pending a Ruling on Intervenors’ Petition for Rehearing,” filed 24 April 2014, 46 sheets: the motion at sheets 1–31, Exhibit 1 at sheets 32–34 and Exhibit 2 at sheets 35–46, Exhibit 2 being the full text of Marra’s order of 18 June 2013. The motion’s own text sends the reader to an Exhibit 3 for the panel opinion; the produced run ends with Exhibit 2
EFTA00602781The order of 25 April 2014 denying that motion. One sheet. A second copy is at EFTA00663183
EFTA00209657Brief of Intervenors/Appellants Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg and Jeffrey Epstein, filed 5 August 2013, 75 sheets
EFTA01071961Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2’s appellee brief, filed 30 August 2013. Sheets 1–61 are the brief; sheets 62–71 are a separately numbered Exhibit A
EFTA00209465The intervenors’ response of 12 July 2013 to the victims’ motion to dismiss the appeal, 25 sheets
EFTA00606117The judgment, entered 18 April 2014, carrying a red “Issued as Mandate / June 11, 2014” stamp, with the clerk’s covering letter to the district court behind it
EFTA00991519The electronic docket notice of the mandate, forwarded 11 June 2014, and the reply to it
EFTA00189918Letter, U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida to a captain of the Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, 11 December 2008, on Epstein’s work-release application
EFTA00007157Palm Beach Police Department incident report, case 1-05-000368. Nothing is taken from the redacted passages
EFTA00214218”Millionaire Employs Legal Dream Team in Sex Scandal,” ABC News blog item of 28 July 2006, as printed out and produced in the release

Timeline

DateEvent
11 November 2005A witness is contacted by an investigator “from the Law Office of Roy Black,” as the police report later records his account29
29 November 2005The detective is told the investigators “were under the direction of Attorney Roy Black in Miami”2930
28 July 2006Black is reported as saying the allegations about the investigators’ behaviour are false31
11 December 2008The U.S. Attorney’s Office writes to the Sheriff’s Office about the work-release file, recording Black’s invitation to do so28
7 April 2011Black and Weinberg move to intervene, DE 5612
18 June 2013Marra denies the intervenors’ motions for a protective order14
27 June 2013Notice of appeal, at DE’s 194-9619
12 July 2013Intervenors’ response to the motion to dismiss the appeal, signed “/s/ Roy Black”6
5 August 2013Appellants’ opening brief2
30 August 2013Appellees’ brief12
23 September 2013Stay of the disclosure order granted17
18 April 2014Opinion affirming and lifting the stay; judgment entered711
24 April 2014Time-sensitive stay motion filed over Black’s signature91
25 April 2014Stay motion denied10
11 June 2014Mandate issued1127

Also on this wiki

Footnotes

Footnotes

  1. Same motion, signature page. This sheet carries three page numbers: the ECF stamp “Page: 30 of 46,” the document’s own foot “-21-,” and its position as sheet 30 of the run, which is the number used here. Three conformed signatures — “/s/ Roy Black,” “/s/ G. Richard Strafer,” “/s/ Martin G. Weinberg” — above the line “Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants.” Read at the page image at 400 dpi. Business telephone, facsimile and email lines on this sheet are not reproduced here. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 p.30. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  2. “BRIEF OF INTERVENORS/APPELLANTS ROY BLACK, MARTIN G. WEINBERG, AND JEFFREY EPSTEIN,” No. 13-12923 (11th Cir.), filed August 5, 2013, cover sheet giving Roy Black and Jackie Perczek at Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, 201 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 1300, Miami, and Martin G. Weinberg at 20 Park Plaza, Boston. Telephone, facsimile and email lines on the cover are not reproduced here. Note on the copy: this run’s certificate of interested persons carries a solid black box across part of the list, and nothing is supplied from under it; the certificate filed with the same appellants’ April 2014 stay motion is the copy relied on above. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209657 pp.1, 2. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  3. Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 v. United States of America; Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg, Jeffrey Epstein, Intervenors-Appellants, No. 13-12923, D.C. Docket No. 9:08-cv-80736-KAM, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, opinion of April 18, 2014, marked “[PUBLISH]” at the head of the caption page; “Before PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HONEYWELL,* District Judge,” the asterisk resolving to “Honorable Charlene Edwards Honeywell, United States District Judge for the Middle District of Florida, sitting by designation.” Read at the page image; the caption page carries no redaction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  4. “MEMORANDUM TO COUNSEL OR PARTIES,” Appeal Number 13-12923-CC, over the printed name of John Ley, Clerk of Court, April 18, 2014, the last sheet of the same run. Case Style line and the FRAP 39 costs line read at the page image. Three black bars stand on this sheet: the “Reply to:” field, the “Phone #:” field, and a third bar at the end of the sentence “For all other questions, please call”. Nothing is supplied from under any of them. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 p.24. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  5. Letter issuing mandate, over the printed name of John Ley, Clerk of Court, June 11, 2014, addressed to the clerk of the U.S. District Court in Miami: “The enclosed judgment is hereby issued as the mandate of this court… A copy of this letter, and the judgment form if noted above, but not a copy of the court’s decision, is also being forwarded to counsel.” Case Style: “Jane Doe v. Roy Black.” https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606117 p.2. ↩ ↩2

  6. Intervenors’ response to the appellees’ motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, No. 13-12923 (11th Cir.), filed July 12, 2013, 25 sheets. Quotations from the third numbered part, on injury from disclosure, whose heading stands on p.22 and whose argument runs over pp.23 and 24, and from the conclusion on p.25, which is signed “/s/ Roy Black” and “/s/ Martin G. Weinberg” above “Intervenor/Appellants and Attorneys for Intervenor/Appellants,” with a certificate of service signed by Weinberg. Sheet numbers of the 25-sheet run are used here; sheets 23, 24 and 25 carry the ECF stamps “Page: 23 of 25”, “Page: 24 of 25” and “Page: 25 of 25” and the document’s own feet “18”, “19” and “20”. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209465 pp.23, 24, 25. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  7. Same opinion, Part IV, Conclusion, the last two lines of the opinion above the page number 23. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 p.23. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  8. Same opinion, the Rule 410 holding and the work-product holding in Part III.B. The sentence “Rule 410 governs the admissibility of plea negotiations, not the discoverability of them” closes p.18; the Rule 410 discussion continues onto p.19, where the numbered sub-heading on waiver stands; and the sentence beginning “Even if it shared the common goal” runs across the break from p.19 to p.20. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 pp.18, 19, 20. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  9. “TIME SENSITIVE MOTION FOR A STAY PENDING A RULING ON INTERVENORS’ PETITION FOR REHEARING,” No. 13-12923 (11th Cir.), filed April 24, 2014. Sheet numbers of the 46-sheet run are used for this document throughout this page. Sheet 10 carries the ECF stamp “Page: 10 of 46” and no printed foot number: it is the first page of the motion, which is unnumbered, and the foot numbering first shows as “-2-” on sheet 11. Through the motion’s own text the printed foot runs nine behind the sheet number (“-18-” on sheet 27, “-21-” on sheet 30); the exhibits behind it carry their own numbering instead. The request for a ruling “by no later than Friday, May 2, 2014” begins in the last line of sheet 10 and completes at the head of sheet 11, whose foot reads “-2-”. Two exhibit divider sheets stand behind the motion and no third: sheet 32 reads “EXHIBIT 1” and sheet 35 reads “EXHIBIT 2”, each carrying nothing else. Sheets 33 and 34 are the stay order of 23 September 2013 and the clerk’s memorandum of the same date; sheets 36 to 46 are the eleven sheets of Marra’s order of 18 June 2013, whose district stamps run “Page 1 of 11” to “Page 11 of 11”; sheet 46 carries the appellate stamp “Page: 46 of 46” and is the last sheet of the run. The motion’s text at sheet 10 cites “Exhibit 3” for the panel opinion, which is not behind it. Sheets 31 to 46 read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 pp.10, 11, 32, 35, 46. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  10. Order, No. 13-12923-CC, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed April 25, 2014, “BEFORE: PRYOR and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HONEYWELL,* District Judge. BY THE COURT: Appellants’ ‘Time Sensitive Motion for a Stay Pending a Ruling on Intervenors’ Petition for Rehearing’ is DENIED.” One sheet, no redaction. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00602781 p.1. A second copy of the same order is at https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00663183 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  11. JUDGMENT, No. 13-12923, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, “Entered: April 18, 2014. For the Court: John Ley, Clerk of Court. By: Jeff R. Patch,” carrying a red boxed stamp reading “Issued as Mandate / June 11, 2014.” The caption names Roy Black, Martin G. Weinberg and Jeffrey Epstein as Intervenors-Appellants. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00606117 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  12. Same brief, the statement of facts, under its sub-heading on the procedural history of releasing the correspondence, which stands near the top of p.16, below the three lines carried over from the preceding sheet. The March 2011 motions are described immediately above it on the same sheet and at the foot of p.15; the passage on the absence of affidavits and of a privilege log is on p.16. Sheets 15 and 16 carry the ECF stamps “Page: 15 of 61” and “Page: 16 of 61” and the brief’s own feet “6” and “7”; the sheet numbers are used here. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01071961 pp.15, 16. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7

  13. Appellee brief of Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, No. 13-12923 (11th Cir.), filed August 30, 2013, its title on the cover sheet; the note quoted is printed under the close of the certificate of interested persons on sheet 3. Sheet numbers of this run are used for this document throughout this page; sheet 3 carries the ECF stamp “Page: 3 of 61” and the brief’s own foot “ii”. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01071961 p.3. ↩

  14. “ORDER GRANTING PETITIONERS’ MOTION TO PROFFER GOVERNMENT CORRESPONDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CVRA CLAIMS & GRANTING MOTION TO UNSEAL CORRESPONDENCE AND RELATED UNREDACTED PLEADINGS OF PETITIONERS,” Document 188, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 v. United States, No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA (S.D. Fla.), entered June 18, 2013, signed Kenneth Marra, United States District Judge; reproduced as Exhibit 2 to the intervenors’ Eleventh Circuit stay motion. Its final sheet carries three stamps — the district docket stamp “Page 11 of 11,” the appellate stamp “Page: 46 of 46,” and the order’s own foot “11” — and the sheet number of the containing run is used here. The redaction proviso is in ordering paragraph 2, on the exhibit’s own p.10, sheet 45 of the containing run; the ordering paragraph naming the three lawyer-intervenors is paragraph 4 on the following sheet. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 pp.45, 46. The order’s substance is set out at Unsealing Decisions in the Epstein Proceedings. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  15. Same order, its own p.2, sheet 37 of the containing run: “It also expresses concern that these allegations describe crimes alleged against Jeffrey Epstein and others for which they were never charged or convicted, contending that the Due Process Clause requires the court to maintain this information under seal to protect the reputations of persons who may have been under federal investigation but not charged or convicted.” This sheet carries three stamps — the district docket stamp “Page 2 of 11,” the appellate stamp “Page: 37 of 46,” and the order’s own foot “2”. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 p.37. ↩

  16. Same opinion, the background section: “Epstein and his criminal defense attorneys, Roy Black and Martin Weinberg, moved to intervene for the limited purpose of challenging the disclosure and use of the correspondence they wrote during plea negotiations”; the grounds pleaded are set out on the following sheet. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 pp.5, 6. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  17. Order, No. 13-12923-CC, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, filed September 23, 2013, “BEFORE: DUBINA, MARCUS, and PRYOR, Circuit Judges,” reproduced as Exhibit 1 to the April 2014 stay motion. The motion’s own text describes this stay as “issued by this Court on September 13, 2013”; the order reproduced behind it carries the filing date September 23, 2013. Sheet 33 of the 46-sheet run carries the containing motion’s ECF stamp “Page: 33 of 46” and, beneath it, the reproduced order’s own stamp “Page: 1 of 1”; the sheet number is used here. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 p.33; the motion’s description is at p.10. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

  18. Same motion, “CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS,” nineteen numbered entries running across two sheets and signed “/s/ Roy Black / Attorney for Intervenor/Appellants.” Jay Lefkowitz is entry 10 and Bruce Reinhart entry 12; entries 18 and 19 are the two pseudonymous appellees. Sheets 2 and 3 of the 46-sheet run carry the ECF stamps “Page: 2 of 46” and “Page: 3 of 46” and the certificate’s own feet “Page C-1 of 2” and “Page C-2 of 2”; the sheet numbers are used here. Read at the page images; neither sheet carries a redaction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 pp.2, 3. ↩

  19. Same brief, sheet 19, which carries the ECF stamp “Page: 19 of 61” and the brief’s own foot “10”; the sheet number is used here. It quotes the district court’s order at DE 206 at 2-3 in a block quotation; the ellipsis in the quotation above marks the omitted string citations. The sentence’s grammar is as printed. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01071961 p.19. ↩ ↩2

  20. Same opinion, opening paragraph of the opinion of Pryor, Circuit Judge. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 p.2. ↩

  21. Same opinion, Part III.A. “[W]e decline to draw an arbitrary line” is on p.11; the sentence “The intervenors claim a privilege based on Rule 410, the work-product privilege, and the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel as well as a new common-law privilege for plea negotiations” begins at the foot of p.13 and finishes at the head of p.14 with “These claims of privilege, however tenuous, are sufficient to establish jurisdiction under Perlman.” The two sentences on the reach of the doctrine before this appeal are on p.10, the second running onto p.11. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 pp.10, 11, 13, 14. ↩

  22. Same opinion, the paragraph beginning “As a last-ditch effort”. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 p.20. ↩

  23. Same opinion, the third numbered sub-part of Part III.B, whose heading declining a common-law privilege for plea negotiations stands at the foot of p.20. The sentence quoted begins at the foot of p.21 (“Although plea negotiations are vital to the functioning of”) and completes at the head of p.22. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00209632 pp.20, 21, 22. ↩

  24. Same motion, the memorandum’s Part I, Introduction, and the following sheet. Sheets 11 and 12 of the 46-sheet run carry the ECF stamps “Page: 11 of 46” and “Page: 12 of 46” and the document’s own feet “-2-” and “-3-”; the sheet numbers are used here. Read at the page images. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 pp.11, 12. ↩

  25. Same motion, under the heading “C. The InterveneorsWill Suffer Irreparable Injury If A Stay Is Denied” — the run-together and the lettering are as printed, and no roman numeral appears on this sheet — quoting In re Sealed Case (Medical Records), 381 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2004). Sheet 27 of the 46-sheet run carries the ECF stamp “Page: 27 of 46” and the document’s own foot “-18-”; the sheet number is used here. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 p.27. ↩

  26. Same motion, certificate of service: “I HERE CERTIFY that a true copy of the foregoing was filed via CM/ECF, this 24th day of April, 2014. /s/ Roy Black.” ECF stamp “Page: 31 of 46,” document foot “-22-”; sheet number used here. Read at the page image at 400 dpi. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01180323 p.31. ↩

  27. Email of June 11, 2014, subject “Re: Fw: 13-12923-CC Jane Doe v. Roy Black ‘Mandate Issued’ (9:08-cv-80736-KAM),” forwarding the Eleventh Circuit’s Notice of Docket Activity for that date, whose docket text reads “Mandate issued as to Appellants Roy Black, Jeffrey Epstein and Martin G. Weinberg” and whose recipient list names Roy Black, Paul Cassell, Bradley James Edwards, Steven M. Larimore, Jay P. Lefkowitz, Guy Richard Strafer and Martin G. Weinberg. The reply quoted — “when do we find out what it says?” — carries an RFC date header of “Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:48:57 +0000”, that is 2:48 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, fourteen minutes after the 2:34 p.m. message it answers and twenty-four minutes after the court’s 2:24 p.m. notice; the two lower stamps are in local time and the offset on the top header is stated on the sheet. The reply is sent from an account whose display name on the sheet is “jeffrey E.” and is addressed to Martin G. Weinberg; the second sheet closes with a confidentiality footer reading “It is the property of” with “JEE” on the following line, and giving that same account as the address for return mail. That is the basis on which the reply is read here as Epstein’s. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00991519 pp.1, 2. ↩ ↩2

  28. Letter, U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorney, Southern District of Florida, to Captain David Sleeth, Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office, Corrections Division, December 11, 2008, “VIA HAND DELIVERY,” re “Work Release Application of Jeffrey Epstein,” first page, closing sentence of the opening paragraph. Read at the page image; this sheet carries no redaction. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00189918 p.1. ↩ ↩2

  29. Palm Beach Police Department Incident Report, Case No. 1-05-000368, printed 7/25/06, the sheet whose own header reads “Page: 58” and which is sheet 58 of this run. The witness’s account of the contact of 11 November 2005 is in the narrative carried over onto this sheet from the preceding one, above the banner for Narrative #24; the detective’s account of the telephone call of 29 November 2005 is in Narrative #24 itself, whose banner stands lower on the same sheet and carries the date 11/29/05. The personal names of the witness and of the officers are blacked out and nothing is supplied from under them; “the Law Office of Roy Black” and “Attorney Roy Black” are printed in the clear. The last sentence runs across the sheet break. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00007157 p.58. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4

  30. Same report, the following sheet, own header “Page: 59,” completing the sentence: “Miami. Mr. Fronstin further stated Epstein had originally called Mr. Dershorwitz in Boston, who recommended Roy Black in Miami, who asked Mr. Fronstin to assist.” The spelling is as printed. Later paragraphs on this sheet are heavily redacted and nothing is taken from them. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00007157 p.59. ↩ ↩2

  31. Maddy Sauer, “Millionaire Employs Legal Dream Team in Sex Scandal,” ABC News, The Blotter, July 28, 2006, printout footed with the article URL and the date 1/2/2008, produced in the release. The dateline carries a clock time with no zone on it, and nothing on the sheet supplies one; it is not reproduced here. A news report, cited here for the reporter’s account of what Black said and not as a court record. One name on this sheet — that of a police official — is blacked out and is not supplied. Read at the page image. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00214218 p.1. ↩ ↩2 ↩3

Backlinks