talk to reid
On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 11:30 AM Martin Weinberg
> wrote:
fyi
I have not yet sent an answer or any document.
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Office
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 Mon, 3/11/19, Kindy, Kimberly <
> wrote:
> From: Kindy, Kimberly <
> Subject: Good morning!
> To: "Martin G. Weinberg"
> Cc: "Reinhard, Beth"
> Date: Monday, March 11, 2019, 9:24 AM
> Mr. Weinberg,
> Again, thanks for your help with this matter. I think the
> only way to get clear documentation that we can show
> editors, which will confirm it's just one victim and the
> age of the girl, is to get the charging document. Is that
> right?
> We've requested it but I'm not sure how long that
> will take. I'm sure you have it, could you please send it
> to us?
> From: Martin G. Weinberg
EFTA01030637
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 12:11 PM
> To: Kindy, Kimberly
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Re Following up
> OFF THE RECORD, the other
> lesser charge - solicitation - does
> not have as an element that the solicited woman was
> underage, see Indictment (this is the second and only other
> charge). Nothing in Indictment alleging or reflecting that
> the age was under 18.
> Again off the record, we did not respond at all to
> her articles although the articles had a number of
> inaccuracies.
> From: Kindy, Kimberly
>
> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 11:17 AM
> To: Martin G. Weinberg 1=INIM>
> Cc: Reinhard, Beth
>
> Subject: Re Following up
> Thanks again for looking for the charging
> document for us. We are hoping that can clear things up for
EFTA01030638
> us today!
> In the meantime, since we have another
> attorney saying that he's certain it's a different
> girl, is it possible that more than one girl was a part of
> that second charge? It does say "minors" in the
> agreement verses "minor."
> It would also maybe explain why Julie K.
> Brown said the girl was 14 and that no correction was
> apparently demanded from her to change it to 17. Did you
> request a correction that wasn't granted?
> Please let us know your thoughts. Thanks
> again for your help.
> Kimberly and Beth
> From: Martin G. Weinberg
> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 6:30 PM
> To: Kindv. Kimberly
> Cc:
> Subject: RE: Thank you and some questions
EFTA01030639
> OFF THE RECORD, FOR YOUR
> BACKGROUND INFO -
> I am only addressing the single charge for which
> registration was the result was contained in the attached
> Information. You will see the charge involved
> You also have the NY SORA Tr. for age of
> From: Kindy, Kimberly
> Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2019 4:35 PM
> To: Martin Weinberg
> Subject: Re: Thank you and some questions
> Mr. Weinberg,
> Thanks so much for getting back to me, Mr.
> Weinberg. This does get closer to clarifying things for us.
> Still, our editor is asking us to locate the charging
> document
> that would have the age of the girl in it, especially since
> we do not have on-the-record confirmation. I know you deal
> with the press all the time so you understand
> this.
> There is also the mystery of why Julie K.
> Brown's story said she's 14. It's always
> possible to get things wrong but no correction has run,
> which is odd for such a high-profile story.
> Two more quick things, can you please clarify
> what took place when she was 17 that caused it to become a
> registrable offense?
EFTA01030640
> And, the way I read the non-prosecution
> agreement, it says he pleaded to two counts, with just one
> involving the one girl. Let me know if I'm getting that
> wrong as well.
> Thank you,
> Kimberly and Beth
> From: Martin Weinberg <IMMIEM>
> Sent: Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:51 PM
> To: Kindy, Kimberly
> Cc: Martin Weinberg
> Subject: Re: Follow up to Beth's email
> yesterday.
> [EXTERNAL EMAIL]
> Off the record, for your understanding:
EFTA01030641
> I. The plea in Fla that resulted in a registerable
> offense occurred on June 30 2008. You can rely on the NY
> transcript as to the age of the woman in that matter. The
> woman was definitely not -The NY transcript which
> addressed the count of conviction
> that alone required registration accurately states that the
> prosecutor agreed that at the time of the conduct that
> required registration, the woman was 17.
> 2.
instead was named in the 2006 Probable Cause
> Affidavit. The top of pg 2 of the same Affidavit reflects
> that she was told by the person who invited her to go to the
> residence that she had to lie and say she was 18 - which she
> did.
> Hope that helps.
> Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
> 20 Park Plaza
> Suite 1000
> Boston, MA 02116
Office
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 Sat, 3/9/19, Kindy, Kimberly
> wrote:
> Subject: Re: Follow up to Beth's email yesterday.
> To: "Martin Weinberg" <
> Date: Saturday, March 9, 2019, 2:00 PM
EFTA01030642
>
>
>
> I really appreciate that. May I
>
> call you in about an hour?
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>
>
> >
>
> On Mar 9, 2019, at 1.26 PM, Martin Weinberg <MEM>
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > [EXTERNAL
>
> EMAIL]
>
> >
>
> > I am happy
>
> to unravel this for you - off the record. Let me
> know.
>
> You can then rely on the right documents.
>
> >
>
> > Martin G. Weinberg,
>
> Esq.
>
> > 20 Park Plaza
>
> >
>
> Suite 1000
>
> > Boston, MA 02116
>
Office
Cell
EFTA01030643
>
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 Sat, 3/9/19, Kindy, Kimberly
>
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Subject:
>
> Follow up to Beth's email yesterday.
>
> > To: "Martin Weinberg" -MINIM>
>
> > Date: Saturday, March 9, 2019, 11:31 AM
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
<S,
EFTA01030644
> > Mr. Weinberg,
> >
> > I'm working with Beth
> > Reinhard on the story about Mr. Epstein.
> Thank
> > you for
> >
> your earlier response regarding the victim's
> > age.
> >
> > I wanted to explain why we
> > are seeking clarity on the girl's
> > age.
EFTA01030645
> >
> > I've attached a
> >
> screenshot of the first page of a May 2006 Palm Beach
> Police
> > Department affidavit because we
> have been told that the
>
girl
> identified as
is the victim in one of
> > the counts to which Mr. Epstein pleaded
> guilty. It says that
> > she was 14.
> >
> > Also, we saw that
> in
> > Julie K. Brown's Nov. 28, 2018
> story she
> > wrote: "Despite
> > substantial physical evidence and
> multiple witnesses
> > backing up the
> girls' stories, the secret deal
> >
> allowed Epstein to
> > enter guilty pleas
> to two felony prostitution
> > charges.
EFTA01030646
> Epstein admitted
> > to committing only
> one offense against one underage girl,
> >
> who was labeled a prostitute, even though she
> > was 14, which
>
is
> well under the age of consent -- 18 in
> >
> Florida."
> >
> >
> > Is this
> > wrong?
> >
> > Another point of
> > confusion came when we reviewed a
> transcript from a Jan. 18,
>
2011 hearing
> regarding
> > compliance with the New
> York registry. Attorneys for
>
Mr.
> Epstein told the court that the girl was 17. The judge
> > said she was Mr. Epstein "procured
> her at
EFTA01030647
>
16..."
> > As you can see, there is a lot of cause
> for
> > confusion.
> >
> Thanks for your attention to this
> >
> matter,
> > Kimberly and Beth
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
EFTA01030648
>>>
> This email has been checked for viruses by
> Avast antivirus software.
> W
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
EFTA01030649