Re: Fw: Good morning!
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.
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.
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 16..."
As you can see, there is a lot of cause for confusion. Thanks for your attention to this matter,
Kimberly and Beth
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
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.
I really appreciate that. May I call you in about an hour?
Sent from my iPhone
Off the record, for your understanding:
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.
- 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.
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? 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
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
Thanks again for looking for the charging document for us. We are hoping that can clear things up for 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
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.
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?
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.