Martin Weinberg

Named on the documents as	Martin Weinberg in correspondence; Martin G. Weinberg on the financial instruments, where the middle initial is the formal form; Weinberg, Martin and Weinberg, Martin G. where an index or address book supplies the display name; Marty Weinberg in familiar use; M. Weinberg and Mr. Weinberg in third-party traffic; and Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. as the professional corporation1
Size of the file	1,927 documents on the exact phrase "Martin Weinberg"; 3,348 over the union of six forms below, a 74% increase on the phrase alone. The surname alone is not a key: Weinberg returns 4,067 and carries at least one other person of note23
The act this page is built on	At least seventy wire instructions issued from Epstein’s office directing funds into his defence lawyer’s client trust account, every one of them through the same Boston bank, running from November 2007 to August 2012, including one for fifty thousand dollars dated three days before Epstein’s guilty plea45
What no document read here shows	Any fee agreement; what work was done for what sum; the purpose of most individual payments. Two of the instructions DO carry an invoice reference in their own reference line, one of them naming two months, so this page’s earlier claim that no invoice or bill appears was false; or anything about his conduct beyond what the documents cited here record. Payment of a lawyer is not evidence of wrongdoing by the lawyer, and nothing on this page suggests otherwise
Covered elsewhere on this wiki	Richard D. Kahn, named on the instructions as the person to be called back with the reference number

Martin Weinberg, a Boston criminal defence lawyer, is one of the larger correspondents in the released Epstein files, and the files hold something more specific than correspondence: a documented series of wire instructions moving money from Epstein’s accounts into Weinberg’s client trust account. Nothing on this page is a finding of wrongdoing. He acted as defence counsel; a lawyer being paid is the ordinary operation of a defence, and no document read for this page suggests he knew of any offence or did anything improper. What the documents establish is the mechanism, the cadence and the timing of the payments, which the release records in unusual detail.

The wire series

The instructions are not thirty-seven, which was a phrase-scoped count, and this page said so before the family had been measured. The designation of the destination account returns 63 documents, and the union with the instruction line reaches 70, of which 33 lie outside the original thirty-seven. Seventy is a floor, not a total, and the sheet-level and document-level identifiers diverge, which is a second reason no flat figure can stand.⁵ Some are single memoranda on Epstein’s own letterhead, faxed from his New York office to a bank, directing a named sum out of an Epstein account into the account of his lawyer’s professional corporation. About half are not: nineteen of the original set are multi-page fax batches, and one sheet carries three separate wires, one of them to an unrelated payee at a different bank. So the set is a slice of Epstein’s outgoing payment traffic rather than a dedicated file, and this page previously described every member as a single memorandum. Every one of them names the same Boston bank, Sovereign Bank, as the destination. This page first reported twenty-nine of thirty-seven, which was an artefact of the desk’s own extraction: the text layer reorders the routing-number field between the bank-name label and its value, so a block pattern dropped eight documents out of the set. Confirmed at the image on two of the eight it had missed.⁵

The instruction is a client trust account, not a business account. The documents identify the destination as a lawyer’s pooled client-funds trust account of the kind held under the United States IOLTA arrangements, which is where money belonging to a client sits before it is earned. So the instruments record funds being placed with counsel, which is not the same as fees being paid, and this page does not treat a transfer as a bill settled.⁶

The amounts fall into two shapes and the distinction is visible across the series. Some are round, fifty thousand dollars, twenty-five thousand, twenty thousand, one hundred thousand, the shape of a retainer or a top-up. Others are irregular to the cent, the largest just over one hundred and sixteen thousand seven hundred dollars, the shape of a sum billed and then paid. But the dichotomy is not clean and this page previously implied it was: one of the two instructions carrying an invoice reference is for a ROUND thirty thousand dollars. The exact irregular figures are not reproduced here and the reason is given in the note.⁵

The dated span runs from November 2007 to August 2012 on the faxes’ own transmission stamps, that is, from before the Florida plea to four years after it.⁵

The instruction of 27 June 2008

One of the thirty-seven is dated three days before Epstein pleaded guilty.

The memorandum is on Epstein’s letterhead at his Madison Avenue address, dated 27 June 2008, addressed to a named officer at JP Morgan and sent under the name of Harry Beller, a member of Epstein’s own staff, who signed it by hand. It directs the bank to move fifty thousand dollars from an Epstein account to Sovereign Bank in Boston, for credit to the lawyer’s client trust account, and closes by asking that the sender’s colleague be telephoned with the Federal Reserve reference number. The sheet gives the sum in words and in figures; the extraction reads the dollar sign as a five, a corruption it repeats on five further members of the set, so the indexed figure is an order of magnitude wrong and the words are the reliable reading.⁴

These documents exist in the release because JPMorgan produced them in litigation in the Southern District of New York, and they carry that production’s own Bates numbering. That is also why two redaction regimes run through the set, which is the reason one copy can print what another bars.⁵

Epstein pleaded guilty to the state charges on 30 June 2008.⁷ The page states the interval and nothing more: the release does not say what the fifty thousand dollars was for, and this page does not guess.

One qualification on the sender, because it is series-wide rather than anchor-specific: the earliest instruction in the set, of 30 November 2007, is sent under Epstein’s own name rather than a member of staff’s. So “sent by staff” is true of this sheet and not of the series.

The closing line is worth noting for what it shows about the office rather than about the lawyer. The request to call back with the reference number is boilerplate across Epstein’s wire traffic generally, it appears on hundreds of instructions unconnected with this lawyer, and the colleague named on it is the accountant who later became an executor of Epstein’s estate.⁴

Identification: a middle initial that is nearly a different population

The formal form is not a subset of the familiar one, and on this subject the gap is the largest the desk has measured.¹

form	documents	outside the base set
"Martin Weinberg"	1,927	,
"Martin G. Weinberg"	1,754	1,014
"Marty Weinberg"	367	325
"Weinberg, Martin"	290	76
"Weinberg, Martin G."	238	71
"Mr. Weinberg"	196	123
"M. Weinberg"	53	45

The middle-initial form holds 1,014 documents the full familiar name never reaches, more than half of its own population, and the reason is functional rather than accidental: the financial instruments use the formal name and the professional corporation, while the correspondence uses the plain one. A page written against either form alone would miss a different half of the record. The union is 3,348 documents, a 74% increase on the phrase.¹

Forms tried that return nothing, given because a form that fails is evidence about the corpus: mweinberg 0, "martyweinberg" 0, "Weinberg & Garber" 0, "Martin Weinburg" 0, "Martin Wienberg" 0. weinbergm returns 1.¹

The bare surname is not usable and carries at least one other person of consequence. Weinberg returns 4,067, of which 719 lie outside the union of the six forms. Sampled, those include the physicist Steven Weinberg, who appears in Epstein’s scientific correspondence alongside other named physicists, a different man, in a different part of the file, reachable by the same surname. No figure on this page is keyed to the surname alone.³

One signed position

Everything above concerns money moving into a trust account, which is why this page was built: the acts it records are administrative, not advocacy, and that is what makes them checkable. The release does carry one document in which this lawyer signed a substantive position, and it is short enough to give whole.

On 6 January 2019, in App. Div. No. 6081, a “Response to Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs” was filed for Epstein and signed for Troutman Sanders LLP by Bennet J. Moskowitz and by Martin G. Weinberg. It is four lines long. Epstein, it says, “does not oppose NYP Holding, Inc’s request to unseal the appellate briefs in the above-captioned matter subject to the proposed redactions of any alleged victim identities, see Post Memorandum at 14, so that the unsealing is consistent with N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 50-b.”⁸

Section 50-b of the New York Civil Rights Law shields the identity of a sex-offence victim. The filing both declined to oppose disclosure and asked that alleged victims’ names be withheld, citing that statute by name. The surrounding record, including the position that reached the newspaper’s counsel by email three days earlier, is set out at NYP Holdings: the man whose brief was under seal did not object to its release, and the prosecutor’s office did.

This page draws no inference from it. It is recorded because it is his signature, because it is the only such document the release carries for him, and because it is the one place where his name and that of Epstein’s other Troutman Sanders counsel appear on the same instrument rather than merely on the same bank statement.

The one place he gives advice in his own words

The page’s framing above is that the acts it records are administrative rather than advocacy. There is one document that does not fit it, and it is put here rather than left out.

At 6:54 a.m. on 24 February 2010 Epstein wrote to four of his lawyers at once, among them Weinberg, describing what he had learned: that the state prosecutor had been in contact with the Palm Beach police the previous August about going to court to move to violate his probation, and that his probation officer had been “removed from the office.. ( the only person removed )”. He then asked what to do about two sets of e-mails, writing that “Reiter emails are filled with communication with the press” and that “we have virtually none of recareys”, and asking whether to approach the other side’s attorney or “go to the judge and ask for all personal emails that are connected in anyway with my case”.

Weinberg answered at 13:09 the same day, under the subject line “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE”, and the whole of his message is this:

Assuming personal emails are outside 119, the ordinary procedure would be to redepose - new evidence - issue subpoena - he would move to quash - we would advocate that his lawyer (assuming he is trustworthy) be allowed to redact personal emails and produce those relating to official business

That is a five-step litigation plan in one sentence, and it is the only place in this release where this lawyer’s own reasoning is visible rather than his signature or his bank details.

⚠ The two men whose e-mails are being discussed are the former Palm Beach chief of police and the detective who ran the investigation, Michael Reiter and Joseph Recarey. The page names them because Epstein’s message names them; it does not characterise what was sought beyond what the message says.

⚠ “119” is not expanded in the document. The desk reads it as Chapter 119 of the Florida Statutes, the public-records law, which is what makes the question of whether personal e-mails fall outside it a question at all. That is the desk’s reading and is marked as one; the sheet says only “119”.

⚠ No inference is drawn about the probation officer’s removal. Epstein reports it; the release cited here does not say why it happened, and the name is barred on this copy.⁹

The floor

3,348 documents, and it is a floor, not a total. Its bounds, stated: it is the union of six name forms plus the professional-corporation form; the bare surname’s 719 residual documents were sampled, not classified; no Damerau–Levenshtein enumeration of the index was run for this page; and no institutional identifier for him, a bar number, a firm code, has been searched. No claim of convergence is made.²

---

Footnotes

1. Counts on the authoritative pages_fts route, scoped text_content, each form run as an exact phrase, and the returned identifier sets compared by set difference against the "Martin Weinberg" base. Union of the six forms 3,348 distinct documents. Zero-returning forms are listed in the body. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴

2. Same route. "Martin Weinberg" 1,927; union 3,348; bare surname 4,067 with 719 outside the union. Triage figures taken on the faster document-level index were confirmed against this route before use, as that index holds 95.1% of documents and is a floor. ↩ ↩²

3. The surname residual was sampled rather than enumerated. Among the sampled hits is correspondence naming the physicist Steven Weinberg beside other named physicists, and separate financial traffic naming the professional corporation without a forename. The residual is NOT claimed to be classified and no count on this page rests on it. ↩ ↩²

4. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA01579460 p. 1. Memorandum on Epstein’s letterhead at his Madison Avenue address, transmission stamped 27 June 2008 on the fax header at the head of the sheet, which carries no time zone; a separate identifier string along the foot does carry one, and whether a zone is present turns out to be a property of the individual transmission rather than of the series, addressed to a named officer at JP Morgan under the name of a member of Epstein’s staff, moving fifty thousand dollars into the lawyer’s trust account at the Boston bank, and asking that a named colleague be telephoned with the Federal Reserve reference number. Read from the text layer; not verified at the image. The source account field and the destination account field are both barred on this copy; neither is reproduced. The callback line is boilerplate appearing on hundreds of Epstein wire instructions unrelated to this lawyer. ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. Thirty-seven distinct documents in the release carry an instruction crediting this lawyer’s professional corporation’s client trust account, established by a phrase search on the instruction line and confirmed document by document. Twenty-nine name the same Boston bank. Transmission stamps run from November 2007 to August 2012. Read from the text layer; NOT verified at the image, and a verification pass should render a sample. ⚠ THE DIFFERENTIAL IS NOW MEASURED AND IT IS LARGE: across ten sheets rendered at 400 dpi, one copy carries no redaction at all where nine bar the destination trust-account number, and two copies of a single transmission differ from each other, one barring exactly what the other prints. This was confirmed on true scans, not on OCR re-renders. But NO ROUTE FOLLOWS FROM THIS PAGE: every string it prints that reaches a recovered copy fails selectivity against the 1,927 documents a reader already has from the subject’s own name, the sharpest being a four-letter term of art at 213. The desk’s decision not to print the instruction line or any amount in words is what keeps that true. ⚠ Neither the instruction line nor any amount expressed in words is reproduced on this page: the instruction line returns 37 documents and each written-out amount returns 2, against 1,927 for the subject’s own name, so each would hand a reader a far shorter path than his name already gives. The account field is barred on every copy examined; thirty-three of the thirty-seven carry other multi-digit runs and three carry many, so no number from these sheets is printed here at all. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵ ↩⁶

6. IOLTA, Interest on Lawyers’ Trust Accounts, is the pooled client-funds account a United States lawyer holds for money belonging to clients. The characterisation of what such an account is for is general professional practice, not a statement from any document in the release, and it is given so that a reader does not read a transfer into trust as a fee earned. ↩

7. The date is taken from the release rather than from outside knowledge: multiple documents state that Epstein pleaded guilty to the state charges on 30 June 2008, including a plaintiff’s filing, a chronology, and a narrative account. The instruction of 27 June 2008 precedes it by three days. This page states the interval and draws no inference from it. ↩

8. “Response to Motion to Unseal Appellate Briefs”, App. Div. No. 6081, dated 6 January 2019, signed for Troutman Sanders LLP by Bennet J. Moskowitz and by Martin G. Weinberg. https://epstein-data.com/EFTA00801681 p. 1. Read at the page image for the account at NYP Holdings, where the telephone and facsimile lines in both signature blocks are recorded as blacked out; those are contact values and are not reproduced here. The print reads “NYP Holding, Inc’s” and “Jeffery Epstein”, both as filed. This sheet is not part of the wire series and no count on this page includes it. ↩

9. E-mail, Martin Weinberg to Jeffrey Epstein, 24 February 2010, 13:09:40 +0000, subject “ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE”, quoting beneath it Epstein’s message of the same day at 6:54 a.m. to Jack Goldberger, Martin Weinberg, Robert D. Critton Jr. and Michael J. Pike. EFTA00762999 p.1, a single sheet, read at the image at 400 dpi. Weinberg’s message is quoted in full, including its dashes and its lack of a terminal stop; Epstein’s is quoted in fragments and his spelling and spacing are reproduced as they appear. ⚠ Two names are barred on this sheet, the state prosecutor’s and the probation officer’s, and neither is supplied. ⚠ The sender’s address is barred and the recipient’s is printed; neither is reproduced here. ⚠ The subject line asserts privilege. The document is in the public release and this page neither treats that assertion as resolved nor relies on it; it is reported as part of the document. ⚠ This identifier was cited by no page on this wiki before 2026-09-19, and had been carried on the desk’s own list of omissions for several days. ↩