HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
1.68 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
7
Organizations
3
Locations
3
Events
3
Relationships
4
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal correspondence / cease and desist notice
File Size:
1.68 MB
Summary
A legal letter from attorney Martin G. Weinberg, representing Jeffrey Epstein, to John Zucker at ABC's Office of Legal Counsel. Weinberg attempts to dissuade ABC from airing a 'Good Morning America' interview with 'Jane Doe 3,' claiming her accusations are uncorroborated, recycled from 2011 UK tabloids, and were previously dismissed by a federal judge. The letter also notes that an FBI agent declared Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the FBI regarding Epstein in 2007.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin G. Weinberg | Attorney |
Sender of the letter; represents Jeffrey Epstein.
|
| Jeffrey Epstein | Client |
Client of Martin G. Weinberg; subject of the accusations discussed in the letter.
|
| John Zucker | Assistant Legal Counsel |
Recipient of the letter; works for ABC's Office of Legal Counsel.
|
| James Hill | Producer |
ABC Producer who informed Weinberg about the upcoming interview.
|
| Jane Doe 3 | Accuser/Interviewee |
Woman giving an interview to ABC; accused Epstein of conduct approx 15 years prior.
|
| Timothy R. Slater | FBI Special Agent |
Filed a declaration stating Jane Doe 3 refused to cooperate with the FBI in 2007.
|
| Jane Doe 1 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in referenced litigation (Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. United States).
|
| Jane Doe 2 | Plaintiff |
Plaintiff in referenced litigation (Jane Doe 1 and 2 v. United States).
|
Organizations (7)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Martin G. Weinberg, P.C. |
Law firm representing Epstein.
|
|
| ABC |
Network planning to air the interview.
|
|
| Office of Legal Counsel |
Department within ABC receiving the letter.
|
|
| Good Morning America |
Program planning to air the interview.
|
|
| Night Line |
Program planning to air the interview.
|
|
| Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) |
Agency that interviewed Jane Doe 3 in 2007.
|
|
| United States District Court (S.D. Fla.) |
Venue of the referenced litigation.
|
Timeline (3 events)
2007
FBI interview of Jane Doe 3 where she allegedly refused to cooperate.
Unknown
April 24, 2015
Date of this letter warning ABC against airing the interview.
Boston/New York
Locations (3)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
|
Sender's address (Weinberg).
|
|
|
Recipient's address (Zucker).
|
|
Location where tabloid publications first published allegations in 2011.
|
Relationships (3)
Letter states: 'I represent Jeffrey Epstein.'
Identified as 'Producer James Hill' in context of ABC programming.
Letter discusses her accusations against Epstein.
Key Quotes (4)
"I write to put you on notice that ABC’s publication of Jane Doe 3’s accusations is grossly negligent or worse."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
Quote #1
"The current accusations are simply reformatted and embellished echoes of previous allegations..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
Quote #2
"Indeed, a federal judge recently refused to consider these allegations in pending litigation, finding them 'immaterial and impertinent'..."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
Quote #3
"...when Jane Doe 3 was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 she refused to cooperate with the investigation of Mr. Epstein declaring she wanted nothing to do with the matter."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965.jpg
Quote #4
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (2,275 characters)
MARTIN G. WEINBERG, P.C.
ATTORNEY AT LAW
ATTORNEY AT LAW
20 PARK PLAZA, SUITE 1000
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 02116
EMAIL ADDRESSES:
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
FAX
[REDACTED]
FAX
[REDACTED]
NIGHT EMERGENCY:
[REDACTED]
[REDACTED]
April 24, 2015
Via Email and U.S. Mail
John Zucker
Assistant Legal Counsel
Office of Legal Counsel
77 W 66TH St, Room 1628
New York, NY 10023
John Zucker
Assistant Legal Counsel
Office of Legal Counsel
77 W 66TH St, Room 1628
New York, NY 10023
Re: Good Morning America and Night Line interview with Jane Doe 3
Dear Mr. Zucker:
I represent Jeffrey Epstein. I have been informed by Producer James Hill that ABC
intends to air an interview, conducted by a Good Morning America co-host, of a woman known
in court papers as Jane Doe 3.¹ I write to put you on notice that ABC’s publication of Jane Doe
3’s accusations is grossly negligent or worse. The accusations, many of which relate to my
client, relate to alleged conduct that occurred approximately 15 years ago. The current
accusations are simply reformatted and embellished echoes of previous allegations, which were
first made by Jane Doe 3 to tabloid publications in the United Kingdom in 2011 and which have
no independent news value. These allegations were then and remain now uncorroborated and
have been refuted or undermined by other, credible evidence. Indeed, a federal judge recently
refused to consider these allegations in pending litigation, finding them “immaterial and
impertinent”, while striking the allegations and denying Jane Doe 3s Motion to Join, See Jane
Doe 1 and 2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 324 at 5. In addition, in that
very same litigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Timothy R. Slater filed a
declaration stating that when Jane Doe 3 was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 she refused to
cooperate with the investigation of Mr. Epstein declaring she wanted nothing to do with the
matter. For ABC to air these untested allegations on national television as “news” when Jane
Doe 3 intentionally declined eight years ago to subject these same allegations to verification by
the FBI would be grossly irresponsible and severely damaging to Mr. Epstein and others.
intends to air an interview, conducted by a Good Morning America co-host, of a woman known
in court papers as Jane Doe 3.¹ I write to put you on notice that ABC’s publication of Jane Doe
3’s accusations is grossly negligent or worse. The accusations, many of which relate to my
client, relate to alleged conduct that occurred approximately 15 years ago. The current
accusations are simply reformatted and embellished echoes of previous allegations, which were
first made by Jane Doe 3 to tabloid publications in the United Kingdom in 2011 and which have
no independent news value. These allegations were then and remain now uncorroborated and
have been refuted or undermined by other, credible evidence. Indeed, a federal judge recently
refused to consider these allegations in pending litigation, finding them “immaterial and
impertinent”, while striking the allegations and denying Jane Doe 3s Motion to Join, See Jane
Doe 1 and 2 v. United States, 08-CV-80736-KAM (S.D. Fla.), Dkt 324 at 5. In addition, in that
very same litigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Timothy R. Slater filed a
declaration stating that when Jane Doe 3 was interviewed by the FBI in 2007 she refused to
cooperate with the investigation of Mr. Epstein declaring she wanted nothing to do with the
matter. For ABC to air these untested allegations on national television as “news” when Jane
Doe 3 intentionally declined eight years ago to subject these same allegations to verification by
the FBI would be grossly irresponsible and severely damaging to Mr. Epstein and others.
__________________
¹ Mr. Hill informed me that she was waiving whatever rights to anonymity she might assert but I will, because of
certain legal obligations, refer to her as Jane Doe 3.
¹ Mr. Hill informed me that she was waiving whatever rights to anonymity she might assert but I will, because of
certain legal obligations, refer to her as Jane Doe 3.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_028965
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document