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 editorial board 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
EFTA01032024
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.
and the govt contending with the fact that many of them
said
EFTA01032025
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 hawkins.. ? 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
EFTA01032026
its
desire to craft a story re a trump cabinet member and
check its facts. ? etc.
thoughts. .
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
EFTA01032022
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.
will roy
sign? lilly , jay? and who exactly is it delivered
to ? very well done , only issue is the 40 vs 80 9
On Sat, Mar 2,
2019 at 9:40 AM Kathy Ruemmler
wrote:
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
EFTA01032021
Board
should feel pressure to publish.
Alan, thoughts on the best way to get this to the right Editor?
Martin G. Weinberg, Esq.
20 Park Plaza
Suite 1000
EFTA01032020
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 dont have a pr expert.. i would asume ken coudl ask someone at wapo.
On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 10:20 AM Martin Weinberg wrote:
Ken advises Jay will not sign (a Kirkland issue) I have sent to Roy - but he may not review until later given his ongoing trial, we will see Ken will sign Ken advises Lilly as co-signatory. Do you want to connect with her? I will include Jack with Lilly with ? Hoping Alan has the best knowledge to get this to right person - if not would your PR expert? See attached
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.