Case File
efta-efta00867429DOJ Data Set 9OtherFrom: "Martin G. Weinberg" <
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
efta-efta00867429
Pages
2
Persons
0
Integrity
No Hash Available
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: "Martin G. Weinberg" <
To: "Jeffrey E." <jeevacationggmail.eorn>, <
Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2015 17:42:05 +0000
Importance: Normal
Attachments: 3771 - DKT 99 - Denial of Intervention.pdf
I have no advanced knowledge as to this afternoon's agenda but would expect they would want some history on the NPA,
Jane Doe #102 lawsuit, the investigation, the CVRA, A letter from them to USAO has no downsides. A filing from them on
Alan's behalf in the CVRA is also something they are considering. It may or more likely may not get traction with J Marra
(see his attached order on Reinhart) but it would at least put before your judge Alan's strong denials and, as important, a
distancing of Alan from the NPA, its immunity provisions, any conflicts of interest etc as well as containing an expected
strong criticism of the gratuitous including of a detailed uncorroborated accusation when it was immaterial to the joinder
issue. Hopefully the Govt will raise lathes, delay as a reason to exclude VR as JD 3. If you have strong views on whether
such a motion should/should not be filed let me know before the call.
From: jeffrey E.
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 9:44 AM
To: Martin G. Weinberg
Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Letter to usao?
On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin G. Weinberg <->
wrote:
Kendall Coffey is Alan's attorney, former federal judge. US Atty Tom Scott the lawyer/expert
From: jeffrey E.
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 9:14 AM
To: Martin G. Weinberg
Subject: Re: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE
Who are they?
On Sunday, January 4, 2015, Martin G. Weinberg
rote:
I will be speaking with Alan's lawyers at 2:30. They are considering an intervention despite the Reinhart Order. I
intend to tell them that you would not consent to your lawyer (prior lawyer?) testifying about his relationship with you at
this time at a voluntary deposition. A battle of video depositions would not in anyway help anyone.
From: jeffrey E.
Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2015 7:48 AM
To: Kathy Ruemmler ; Darren Indyke ; Alan Dershowitz ; Martin Weinberg
Subject: Conclusion
my friend upon hearing the evidence thatI
lis lying said ". Jeffrey, you're being silly, every thinking person knows she is lying
but you have to admit it's fun to watch. Royals sex money celebrity. How can you not watch". Let's deal with it with a legal motion
and I strongly suggest a halt in trying to manage . It merely contributes to the theater. Thanks
please note
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
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. If you have received this
EFTA00867429
communication in error, please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or bye-mail to javascript:_e(967890Dicvmli
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
please note
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
JEE
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 javascript: e(%7B%7D,icvmli
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
please note
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
JEE
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
);, and
);, and
EFTA00867430
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Email
[email protected]Related Documents (6)
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025
Internal email chain discussing motion to unseal Jeffrey Epstein appeal briefs (Dec 2018)
The passage reveals that attorneys for Jeffrey Epstein were actively filing a motion to unseal redacted appellate briefs in 2018, indicating that undisclosed information may exist in those documents. Attorney Jack Browning filed a motion to unseal redacted briefs from Epstein's 2011 appeal. The motion set a return date of Dec 31, 2018, suggesting a narrow window for opposition. Recipients include
1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: J <[email protected]>
6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: "Martin G. Weinberg" <
2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: Martin Weinberg
25p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: J <[email protected]>
12p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: J <jeevacation®gmail.com>
3p
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.