From: Martin Weinberg
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (3)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Related Documents (6)
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 (
Subject: RE: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM Doe v. United States of America Endorsed Order
From: To: Subject: RE: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM Doe v. United States of America Endorsed Order Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:38:56 +0000 Importance: Normal I should be available on April 20, and I think also on April 28, but I'm checking on the later date. That could be when I need to be in Nashville. I should be able to tell you before Monday. U From: Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 12:52 PM To: Subj : : vi in se : -cv- - oe v. ni o menca n o er Hello again — Please see below. I will set up a conference line and send an email to the judge and all attorneys of record. By the way, I called to clarify whether "all counsel of record" meant only counsel for the Jane Does and us, and I was told that the judge wants all intervenors notified, as well. That means: Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, Palm Beach Post, and Palm Beach Daily News. Judge Marra denied Bruce Reinhart and Alan Dershowitz's motions to intervene. Assistant U.S. Attor
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
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
Reporter inquires about alleged Trump‑Epstein property deal and potential criminal exposure
The email references a specific claim that Donald Trump bought a Palm Beach property that Jeffrey Epstein intended to purchase, and that Epstein threatened to expose Trump’s “shady” real estate deals. Alleged purchase by Trump of a Palm Beach property originally slated for Epstein. Claim that Epstein threatened to reveal illegal or suspicious Trump real‑estate transactions. Reference to a Crime Vi
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.