From: J <[email protected]> To: Lilly Ann Sanchez <1 Subject: Fwd: CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2019 14:31:53 +0000 Attachments: DRAFT_LETTER_TO_EDITORS.doc Forwarded message From: Martin Weinberg <1. Date: Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 9:22 AM Subject: CONFIDENTIAL and ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE To: Ken Starr , Martin Weinbe , Alan Dershowitz Kathy Ruemmler , Darren Indyke J <[email protected]> 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. On Sat, 3/2/19, J <[email protected]> wrote: Subject: time sensitive "Kathy Ruemmler" , "Darren Indyke" , c,AartinWeinaM>, "Alan Dershowitz" To: "Ken Starr" Date: Saturday, March 2, 2019, 12:42 AM 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 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 EFTA01032040