RE: ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE

i agree with your deletes, the further edits are suggestions only

Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.

20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000

Boston, MA 02116

cell

EFTA00638100

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.

ok with me for this one

i understand , but marty and i think counter productive.. also i am not really sure why berlosconi adds much, as oppsed to a case law citation,

Please see additional suggestions. As I say in my comment I think it is important to point out that this young woman was 17, not 13, 14 or whatever and I think it is important to cite the definition, even in a footnote, of pedophilia.

paul marry gets final decison on these things, I have made some edits.

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 jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved

need to receive in a different format, this one not opening, thanks Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.

20 Park Plaza, Suite 1000

Boston, MA 02116

cell

EFTA00638101

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.

If we want them to make the change and stop referring to you as a pedophile I think we need to point out that the conviction was for someone not 13 pursuant to the definition, or even 14 or 15, but 17 — and, we should give him the definition. There may be legal reasons why it could be counterproductive, but not — to my knowledge based on the facts as I understand them — PR or media reasons. Otherwise, under 18 just means under 18, it could be 10, which we know of course is ridiculous.