They are engaged in a formal dialogue within a court proceeding, typical of a lawyer addressing a judge.
Formal dialogue within a court proceeding as recorded in the transcript.
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Weinberg, likely an attorney, is presenting an argument to The Court (the judge).
The document is a transcript of a formal court proceeding where Mr. Weinberg, an attorney, is presenting legal arguments to the presiding judge (The Court).
Mr. Weinberg is formally addressing 'THE COURT' in a legal proceeding, indicating an attorney-judge relationship.
Mr. Weinberg is an attorney appearing before the judge (THE COURT) in a legal proceeding, addressing the judge as 'your Honor'.
Formal dialogue in a court proceeding where Mr. Weinberg addresses the court as 'your Honor' and 'Judge'.
Formal dialogue in a court proceeding where Mr. Weinberg addresses the court as 'your Honor' and 'Judge'.
Mr. Weinberg addresses the Court as "your Honor" during the legal proceeding.
Mr. Weinberg addresses the Court as "your Honor" during the legal proceeding.
DOJ-OGR-00000543.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, capturing a discussion between a speaker, Mr. Weinberg, and the Court. Mr. Weinberg argues that a defendant's 14 years of self-discipline should be considered evidence against future risk, questioning the government's ability to prove otherwise. The Court expresses significant interest in this argument, referencing government-supported studies on long-term recidivism among sex offenders that it has reviewed.
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-00000569.jpg
This document is a court transcript from July 24, 2019, where a speaker identified as Mr. Weinberg argues against the imposition of monetary bail conditions. He supports his position by referencing the federal Bail Reform Act of 1984, a similar movement in Massachusetts, and a broader societal shift away from the overcriminalization policies of the 1980s. Weinberg contends that defendants should not be incarcerated simply because they are unable to pay bail.
DOJ-OGR-00000621.jpg
This document is a court transcript from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB, filed on August 6, 2019. The transcript captures a discussion between the judge, Ms. Moe (representing the government), and Mr. Weinberg (representing the defense) to schedule future court dates. Key dates set include an appearance on October 28, a briefing deadline on February 24, 2020, and an oral argument on March 12, 2020.
DOJ-OGR-00000615.jpg
This document is a court transcript from August 6, 2019, detailing a conversation between the judge and defense counsel, Mr. Weinberg, about scheduling a trial. Mr. Weinberg requests a preliminary trial date after Labor Day to allow time to assess his client, Mr. Epstein's, 'ability'. The judge questions this request in light of a presumed desire for a speedy trial, to which Weinberg responds by citing the length of the trial and the timing of discovery.
DOJ-OGR-00000580.jpg
This is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, detailing a discussion between a judge and several lawyers. The conversation covers an agreement between the U.S. Attorney and defense counsel regarding whether trustees or guards will be armed. Attorney Mr. Boies, representing a victim, interrupts to clarify that payments of $250,000 and $100,000 were made by the defendant at a time when a legal proceeding was pending, contradicting a prior statement by the defense.
DOJ-OGR-00000551.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019. In it, a lawyer named Mr. Weinberg argues that his client, a tier 3 registrant, has a long history of compliance with daily monitoring and has been careful to avoid any violations. Mr. Weinberg explains that his client was advised he did not need to physically appear in New York and details how his client's travel, monitored from the Virgin Islands, is carefully reported.
DOJ-OGR-00000545.jpg
This document is a page from a court transcript dated July 24, 2019, from case 1:19-cr-00490-RMB. A speaker, Mr. Weinberg, argues to the court that the immense publicity surrounding Mr. Epstein, combined with his wealth, makes him an attractive target for both civil and criminal complaints. Weinberg contends that this unprecedented level of attention would motivate any individuals victimized by Epstein after 2005 to come forward.
Entities connected to both Mr. Weinberg and The Court
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein relationship