Epstein Secrets

te or knowing” and the “motive underlying the lawyer’s conductis not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted.”439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorney,

CES GEOFFREY S. BERMAN United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MAURENE R. COMEY ALISON MOE Assistant United States Attorneys MARTIN G. WEINBERG, PC Attorney for Defendant BY: MARTIN G. WEINBERG STEPTOE & JOHNSON, LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: REID WEINGARTEN MICHAEL MILLER SOUTHERN DISTRICT

or knowing" and the "motive underlying the lawyer's conduct'is not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted." 439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorne

as evidence. See Fed! R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility' of their obtaining monetary damages through either a ci

JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Plaintiffs v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR STAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby request that this Honorable Court stay its order of June 18, 2013 (Doc. 188), denying their Motion for a

TAY PENDING APPEAL Intervenors Roy Black, Martin Weinberg, Jay Lefkowitz, and Jeffrey Epstein hereby reque

led to obtain those materials in discovery in the first instance. That question must be answered by reference to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26, which refers to Federal Rule of Evidence 501, which "empower[s] the federal courts to `continue the evolutionary development of [evidentiary] privileges!" Adkins v. Christie, 488 F.

See also Florida Bar re Webster, 647 So. 2d 816 (Fla. 1994) (petition for reinstatement denied due to “misrepresentation by omission”). 442 In Feinberg, 760 So. 2d at 938, the court found that an Assistant State Attorney lacked candor and violated ethics rules when, after meeting with a defendant ou

or knowing” and the “motive underlying the lawyer’s conduct is not determinative; instead the issue is whether he or she purposefully acted.”439 In Feinberg, the court concluded that the prosecutor violated FRPC 4-4.1 and 4-8.4(c) and (d) by deliberately making untruthful statements to a defense attorne

evidence. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 11(f) (“The admissibility or inadmissibility of a plea, a plea discussion, and any related statement is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 410.”). In any case, the victims could have been impeached regarding the possibility of their obtaining monetary damages through either a c