From: "=
Summary
From: "= >" To:" " cla, Subject: Fwd: counsel having difficulty meeting with client Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2019 22:22:16 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: TEXT.htm I have verified Martin Weinberg is an attorney in good standing in Massachusetts. He is permitted to visit Jeffrey Epstein. Scnt from my Vcrizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Ori inal messa e From: " " Date: 7/7/19 6:18 PM GMT-05:00 To: Subject: RE: counsel having difficulty meeting with client >>> " )" 07/07/2019 18:18 >» Massachusetts From: Sent: Sunda Sunda Jul 07, 2019 18:18 To: Subject: Re: counsel having difficulty meeting with client Sony M , just seeing this now. Where is he barred? Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Original message From: " Date: 7/7/19 5:36 PM To: >, mailto: Subject: RE: counsel having difficulty meeting with client >» ' " 07/07/2019 17:36 >>> With apologies for the weekend email, we have a defendant, Jeffrey Epstein, who was arrested last night and is
Persons Referenced (3)
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
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,
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie
Display Name
Display Name Email UUID 6ICE9350-0B4F-0000-AB39-E8Of'2A59A443 Distribution 'I've TO Recipient Type SysternGroupMember Recipient Display Name Email IRA D 9D77B2D0-19C1-0000-A9894Y2C00000S8D0 Distribution Type TO Recipient Tvpc SystemGroupkkmber Recipient Display Name Email _ U LID 4237CDC0-1407-0000-AF20-8402120084D2 Distribution Type TO Recipient Type _Recipient Display Name a Email UUID 66E64C10-1320-0000-8ECI-2F2162868DCC Distribution Type TO Recipient Txpe SystemGroupMember Expire 0 Delay delivers until 0 Delegated fake Archived fake Read fake Deleted fake Opened fake Completed fake Security Normal Box type Inbox Return notification hen opened fake Return notification "hen deleted fake Return notification when completed fake Return notification %%hen declined fake Return notification "hen accepted false Archive S'en ion 5.3 Internal ID 5D4F0066.NYMDOMLNYMADMI.100.16B6F30.1.F EAE. [email protected] LNY MADM 1.103.0.1.0.141
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
Dershowitz Supplement to Motion for Limited Intervention
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 285 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/12/2015 Page 1 of 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOES #2 Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. ________________________________/ ALAN DERSHOWITZ’S SUPPLEMENT TO HIS MOTION FOR LIMITED INTERVENTION (DE 282) Alan M. Dershowitz, a nonparty to this litigation, respectfully supplements his previously filed Motion for Limited Intervention (
U.S. Department of Justice
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney Southern District of New York The Si!lo J. Mollo Building One Saint Andrew's Plaza New York, New York 10007 July 8, 2019 VIA ECF The Honorable Henry Pitman United States District Court Southern District of New York United States Courthouse 500 Pearl Street New York, New York 10007 Re: United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB) Dear Judge Pitman: The Government respectfully submits this letter in advance of the bail hearing scheduled for July 9, 2019, in the above-captioned case. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court should issue a permanent order of detention of the defendant; he cannot meet his burden of overcoming the presumption that there is no combination of conditions that would reasonably assure his continued appearance in this case or protect the safety of the community were he to be released. As set forth below, the charges in this case are exceptionally serious: the defendant is alleged to
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.