Re: CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE
now that the NYT , the paper of record has gotten so many facts and conclusions wrong. I thought a direct response to the editorialboard was now appropriate. . thoughts on more than one member of the team on the byline?. . starting with the suggestion that 5 professional criminal defense attorney somehow colluded with alex acosta is preposterous. it was reviewed by many sets of eyes at DOJ / reference sloman letter.? . the attack on the decision to require Epstein to plead in the state.rather than in fed court . was an outcome dictated by the fact that this was a quintessential state case. A florida case of sex for money. The ages of a minority of the women actually under 18 at the time. of and the govt contending with the fact that many f them said they had misrepresented their age to epstein and the clubs at which they worked. ? . There was never a sex party. Epstein does not have parties. . he had a science gathering and allegations were made that one of the women was required to have sex with academics world leaders. academics including stephen hawkings.. ? the guest list were used to accuse people of sex assault. ). President Clinton was never ever on his island. no proof , neither was al gore.. at some point a newspaper , should take a step back and in its desire to craft a story re a trump cabinet member and check its facts. ? etc. thoughts.
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 jeevacation@gmail.com, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
A very quick morning stab at a possible letter to editor.- hopefully to motivate edits, discussion, revisions, I think this route makes far more sense than uninvited Op-Eds. Also consistent with a draft being edited to be sent to Sen Sasse. The NYT Editorial is enraging in its political bias - and is deeply damaging.
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.
well done thx
This is great. Highly recommend that we not let perfect be the enemy of the good and get this submitted ASAP while fresh and NYT Ed Board should feel pressure to publish.
Quick suggestions marked on the attached.
DARREN
K. INDYKE
5300 W. Atlantic Avenue, Suite 602
Delray Beach, Florida 33484
Telephone:
Telecopier:
I
Mobile:
The information contained ************** ************** ************* email: in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, and is intended only for the use of the addressee. It is the property of Darren K. Indyke. 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, and destroy this communication and all copies thereof, including all attachments. Copyright of Darren K. Indyke - C
2019 Darren K. Indyke - All rights reserved.
thanks, most included in latest draft
EFTA01031865
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
EFTA01031866
Boston, MA 02116
Office
Cell
EFTA01031867
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.
do we mention that we are also writing to sasse .?
I don't think it necessary
The longer this is, the more likely for editing
Ken thinks Alan should co-sign. OK with you?
EFTA01031860
Without a name, I think we send to the Letters to the Editor eg by noon and then have followup to make sure its received, published
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
EFTA01031861
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.
the point was that you write that academics were accused doesnt alan s byline , become the focal?
we drop him in middle of signatories he is in their editorial so his absence as a co-signatory is noticeable but your instinct may be right to omit
EFTA01031857
Lilly? good to have female. I think we pick a time for roy, lilly and send to Editors. Then followup to push for publication.I have asked Ken to get us a contact. alan too. no reply to those requests.
I have not sent to Lilly thinking you wanted to but can, let me know
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.
darren has reached out.
Alan out. Roy has authorized me to sign his name to the 3-8 J Marra pleading but not the letter to Editor. Its Ken, me, Jack, maybe Lilly.
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
Boston, MA 02116
Office
Cell
EFTA01031856
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.
did roy give a reason??
No.
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.