Mr. Weinberg
PersonRelationship Network
Event Timeline
| Connected Entity | Relationship Type |
Strength
(mentions)
|
Documents | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Client |
10
Very Strong
|
6 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Professional |
10
Very Strong
|
8 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Client |
8
Strong
|
3 | |
|
organization
The Court
|
Legal representative |
8
Strong
|
4 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Professional |
7
|
3 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Client |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Filip
|
Professional |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Epstein
|
Legal representative |
6
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Professional |
6
|
2 | |
|
person
Ms. Moe
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Your Honor (The Court)
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
your Honor
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
registrant
|
Professional |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Client (Epstein)
|
Client |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. EPSTEIN
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
the defendant
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Jeffrey Epstein
|
Legal representative |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
MR. WEINGARTEN
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 | |
|
person
Mr. Fernich
|
Business associate |
5
|
1 |
| Date | Event Type | Description | Location | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-24 | Court hearing | Mr. Weinberg presents a legal argument regarding the burden of proof for demonstrating his client... | Courtroom | View |
| 2019-07-24 | N/A | Court hearing regarding bail conditions and the sealing of financial information. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-07-24 | N/A | Court Hearing in Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-07-24 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Epstein's release/bail. | Southern District of New Yo... | View |
| 2019-07-16 | N/A | Court hearing regarding obstruction discussions and scheduling of bail application. | Courtroom | View |
| 2019-07-16 | N/A | Court hearing regarding Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB | Courtroom (Southern Distric... | View |
| 2008-01-01 | Approval | Mr. Weinberg approved the discretion to enter a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and implicitly en... | N/A | View |
| 2008-01-01 | N/A | Start of CVRA (Crime Victims' Rights Act) litigation. | Southern District of Florida | View |
DOJ-OGR-00000540.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a dialogue between an attorney, Mr. Weinberg, and the presiding judge. Mr. Weinberg argues that his client's case is not a typical trafficking case and that the legal presumption for detention is rebuttable. The discussion focuses on the two prongs for rebuttal—danger to the community and flight risk—and the different legal standards of proof required for each.
DOJ-OGR-00000539.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, concerning Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. The text captures a dialogue between the Court and defense attorney Mr. Weinberg. The Court lists various crimes involving minors that carry a presumption of remand. Mr. Weinberg acknowledges the gravity of the allegations against Jeffrey Epstein but argues that his case does not fit the typical profile ('heartland') of commercial sex trafficking statutes (1591) which usually involve servitude, enslavement, and pimps.
DOJ-OGR-00000536.jpg
This document is an excerpt from a legal proceeding transcript dated July 24, 2019, discussing a case involving federal interest and an indictment against Mr. Epstein. Mr. Weinberg, identified as Deputy Attorney General, explains his approval in May or June 2008 for a Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) and the federal government's involvement, including urging Florida to bring additional charges against Mr. Epstein. The discussion also touches upon the roles of Mr. Sloman and Mr. Filip within the Department of Justice and the scope of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York.
DOJ-OGR-00000534.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript filed on July 24, 2019, related to the Jeffrey Epstein case (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB). Attorneys Weinberg and Rossmiller discuss the history of the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA) with the Court, specifically referencing a March 2008 meeting in Washington between the defense and the DOJ's Criminal Division/Child Exploitation Unit. The discussion highlights that the defense argued the case lacked interstate elements needed for federal prosecution, and the DOJ subsequently issued a letter in May 2008 endorsing prosecutorial discretion due to the 'unusual' facts of the case.
DOJ-OGR-00000533.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. Attorney Mr. Weinberg argues that the timing of Epstein's arrest was suspicious relative to a CVRA filing in Florida. He asserts that high-level DOJ officials, specifically Alice Fisher (then Head of the Criminal Division) and Sigal Mandelker (currently Undersecretary of the Treasury), were directly involved in approving the controversial 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
DOJ-OGR-00000531.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A representative for the government argues against the defendant's legal claims, stating a non-prosecution agreement is not applicable and that the case will proceed, and urges the court to order the defendant's detention. Following the government's statement, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg begins to address the court.
DOJ-OGR-00000401.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript (Case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB) dated July 16, 2019. The text details a discussion between the Judge (The Court), defense attorneys (Weingarten and Weinberg), and the prosecutor (Rossmiller) regarding the scheduling of a bail application hearing, moving it from Thursday to the following Monday at 10:00 AM. The prosecutor, Mr. Rossmiller, requests a moment to confer with the defense and subsequently states that the government will rely on its initial submission.
DOJ-OGR-00000397.jpg
This is page 11 of a court transcript filed on July 16, 2019. Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg argues to The Court that the discussion should concern the scope of Epstein's Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA), not its legality. He references a filing by Northern District of Georgia prosecutors (acting for Southern District of Florida) before Judge Marrah that supported the NPA's constitutionality and asserted Epstein fulfilled his obligations.
DOJ-OGR-00000395.jpg
This document is page 9 of a court transcript from July 16, 2019, in the case United States v. Epstein (SDNY). The prosecution argues that the Southern District of New York is not bound by the 2008 Non-Prosecution Agreement (NPA). Defense attorney Mr. Weinberg counters that the NPA provided Epstein with immunity for the conduct currently being prosecuted, including interstate travel and communications, and asserts that Epstein fulfilled the terms of that agreement.
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_016426.jpg
This document is Page 3 of a legal affirmation detailing procedural history regarding a motion by 'The Post' to unseal appellate briefs related to the Epstein case. It chronicles communications between the Post's legal counsel, the Manhattan District Attorney's Office (specifically Karen Friedman Agnifilo), and Epstein's counsel (Mr. Weinberg) between December 2018 and January 2019. Key points include the DA's opposition to the motion, the suggestion to notify Florida prosecutors, and Mr. Weinberg formally stating that Epstein took no position on the unsealing.
Prison Conditions and Medical Examiner Conclusions
Oral argument regarding the horrific conditions at the MCC/SHU and disputing the medical examiner's findings.
Trial Scheduling
Discussion regarding the scheduling of the trial for either June or September 2020.
Trial Scheduling and Discovery
Weinberg argues for a trial date of Labor Day 2020 due to the volume of discovery (1 million pages) and complex legal issues surrounding the NPA.
Trial Scheduling
Weinberg argues that the defense needs 13 months to prepare due to sealed files, the NPA, and jail conditions.
Publicity and its effect on the case against Mr. Epstein
Mr. Weinberg argues that the high level of publicity and Mr. Epstein's wealth make him an attractive defendant and would motivate any potential victims to come forward with allegations.
Compliance with registration and travel notification
Argument regarding the defendant's compliance with sex offender registration and lack of violation notices.
DOJ involvement in 2007 NPA
Discussion regarding the timing of Epstein's arrest relative to CVRA filings and the identification of DOJ officials involved in the 2007 non-prosecution agreement.
Bail Hearing Arguments
Discussion regarding the right to counsel, fairness relative to other defendants, and the complexity of the current case involving 'a million pages of discovery'.
Defense of Mr. Epstein's character and flight risk status
Mr. Weinberg argues that Mr. Epstein is not an out-of-control offender or a flight risk, citing past intensive investigations and the high level of publicity surrounding him. The Court questions the basis for Mr. Weinberg's assessment of his client's character.
Response to the Court
Mr. Weinberg thanks the judge and begins to provide context for the case before responding to the Court's questions.
Bail Hearing / Applicability of Statute 1591
Weinberg argues that while the allegations are grave, Epstein's case differs from the 'heartland' of commercial sex trafficking involving servitude and pimps.
Registrant's compliance and travel monitoring
A discussion between Mr. Weinberg and the Court about a registrant's obligations, travel, and history of compliance.
Bail Hearing Argument
Discussion regarding the confidentiality of financial records submitted for bail determination.
Bail conditions for Mr. Epstein
Mr. Weinberg argues for the reconsideration of bail conditions for his client, Mr. Epstein. He contrasts Epstein with another defendant who had foreign passports and lied to pretrial services, and proposes appointing a credible trustee to live at Epstein's home to ensure compliance.
Legal arguments regarding a case
Mr. Weinberg argues that the current case is not one of 'quintessential commercial sex trafficking' and that the presumption for detention is rebuttable, wishing to address the 'danger' and 'flight' prongs separately.
Arguments against monetary bail conditions
Mr. Weinberg argues against monetary bail conditions, citing the complexity of pretrial preparation, a movement in Massachusetts, the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, and a broader societal reaction against the overcriminalization of the 1980s.
Mr. Epstein's compliance with New York sex offender regis...
Mr. Weinberg acknowledges seeing the story and states that nobody from the "New York side" has ever informed Mr. Epstein that he was in violation.
Position on unsealing briefs
Stating that after consideration, they take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein regarding the unsealing request.
Position on Unsealing
Stated they take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein regarding the unsealing.
Position on unsealing
Stated 'we take no position on behalf of Mr. Epstein' regarding the unsealing request.
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity