Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00697869DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Martin Weinberg

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00697869
Pages
2
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.
From: Martin Weinberg To: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> Cc: Martin Weinberg Subject: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 15:59:45 +0000 I would think Chris should review notes, see how they interface with 2d Am Complaint, defenses to counter- claim eg was R asked directly about B/E knowledge? LM fed complaint? I am on cell for followup for the next 15-20 minutes, or later today Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 cell This Electronic Message contains information from the Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, P.C., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. - - On Tue, 9/13/11, Jeffrey Epstein efrevacation@gmaacom> wrote: From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]> EFTA00697869 Subject: To: "Martin Weinberg" Black" Cc : "Christopher E. Knight" , "Lilly Ann Sanchez" Date: Tuesday, September 13, 2011, 11:18 AM Im told that rothstein has allowed the trustee to depose him.. the feds were there, nurik has extensive notes that he is willing to share.. it also turns out that though brad edwards joined the rra firm in 09„ the email traffic says that scott was pimping my cases as early as dec of 08. Rothstein said that both adler ( brought edwards into the firm and rosenfielt knew of the scheme ). The information contained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Jeffrey Epstein Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected], and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved EFTA00697870

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "Martin Weinberg"

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Jeffrey Epstein <[email protected]>

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

4p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Martin Weinberg <MINIM>

22p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 9:08-ev-80736-Civ-ICAM JANE DOE 1 and JANE DOE 2 I UNITED STATES JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO EPSTEIN'S MOTION FOR A PROTECTIVE CONFIDENTIALITY ORDER COME NOW Jane Doe 1 and Jane Doe 2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to file this response in opposition to Epstein's Motion for a Protective Confidentiality Order (DE 247). Epstein's motion is a thinly-disguised attempt to relitigate issues already covered by the court's earlier ruling eleven months ago (DE 188), which allowed the victims to file correspondence relating to Epstein's non-prosecution agreement in the public court file. Rather than reverse its previous ruling, this Court should reaffirm it — and allow the important issues presented by this case to be litigated in the light of day. BACKGROUND Because of Epstein's penchant for relitigating issues that have already been decided, it

20p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office recuses itself from Jeffrey Epstein case; DOJ nominee Barr pledges investigation

The passage reveals that a federal prosecutor's office recused itself from the high‑profile Epstein case and that AG nominee William Barr was pressed to investigate DOJ handling. This suggests a poten Miami U.S. Attorney’s Office formally recused itself from the Epstein victims’ rights case. The case was reassigned to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Atlanta. Senator Ben Sasse questioned AG nominee W

1p

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.