From: "Martin Weinberg" To: "Jeffrey Epstein" <[email protected]> Cc: ' ' < Subject: Re: CMA-Amicus Curiae - ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 21:26:26 +0000 I think your risks decrease with the extent to which you have met your obligations, the most severe being the jail sentence; the chances of getting a court to reject Govt claim 2255 essential to holistic NPA and your claim the 2255 was unconstitutional AND severable go up with time... -- Original Message — From: Jeffrey Epstein To: Martin Weinber Cc: Rita Budmth ; ; Robert D. Critton Jr. • Goldberger, Jack Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2009 4:44 PM Subject: Re: CMA-Amicus Curiae -ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE reminder „ in this instance i am being forced as part of a criminal agreement to agree to 2255 it is clearly part of a " punishment agreement".. On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Martin Weinberg < wrote: yes, thanks the existing law is as I expected regarding the lack of need for a prior criminal conviction - but because the law on the interface of 2255/criminal code is both in its infancy and evolving we should give some consideration (perhaps, given that the CMA filing is a reply brief whereas a response to Jane Doe 101 whether as a stand alone motion to dismiss or as a response to amici in the Jane Doe 101 litigation but I leave the civil procedural issues to you and Bob and Jack) to contending that either a prior conviction or, absent a conviction, proof to a higher standard than preponderance (beyond a reasonable doubt) is warranted given that Congress has not limited the remedy to the civil norm of provable damages (whether compensatory or punitive) but has manufactured a lump sum recovery similar to a criminal fine or punishment and that the "penal-type" consequence should warrant (in the absence of prior criminal proceeding proof of a Title 18 violation of one of 2255s predicates) that a criminal law standard be required (otherwise the plaintiff can bring tra