Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00775148DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: "Martin Weinberg" <

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00775148
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: ' < Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 21:48:25 +0000 > not necessarily would depend on whether it relates to collateral or essentials the request puts them in a dilemma: take the 5th and suffer at least an adverse inference (may neutralize some of the inferences of your assertion) or produce self-incriminating matter that can be used to impeach, show bias, diminish damages, etc. Court can clearly construct a procedure under 18 USC 3509(m) where the Court can receive the evidence and control access to the lawyers (I've sent Bob the references, cases, etc) if they come to their senses and take 5th Am (if their other objections are denied), its an assertion that would be incompatible with any later challenge to your 5th and would also provide you with at least the adverse inference - that they are not the soccer mom/daughters depicted - and perhaps a basis to seek some greater relief (I have not researched the trigger points for a defendant to move, globally, for summary judg as response to 5th by plaintiff) Probably should push these issues in depo as well since they apparently touched a vulnerability in the plaintiffs positions Original Message From: Jeffrey Epstein To: Martin Weinberg Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 5:40 PM Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE as civil plaintiffs , isn't the complaint dismissed if they assert he fifth? On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 5:37 PM, Martin Weinberg < > wrote: Bob has asked for my opinion on a discovery demand that the Jane Does are resisting: most critical is to not take any position that would conflict with your right, if necessary, at a later time, to assert a 5th Am.act of production defense under Hubbell v US, Fisher v US we don't want to set forth a position in demanding discovery we will be forced to relinquish in defending it (if and when the time comes) Martin G. Weinberg MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC 20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000 Boston. MA 02116 FAX) **************************************************************************** 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. **************************************************************************** EFTA00775148 I EFTA00775149

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Wire Refreferences

Related Documents (6)

Court UnsealedJan 26, 2015

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 (

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

3p
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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

14p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

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

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.