Loading Jmail…
Jmail
search⌘K
Profile
editCompose
inboxInboxstar_borderStarredvisibility_offUnredaction RequestssendSentattach_fileAttachmentscalendar_todayDaily Activity
north_east
  • question_answerAsking for advice
  • handshakeIntroductions
  • shieldDamage control
  • bakery_diningConspiring w/ Brunel
  • Browse all people →
  • All Contacts
  • Jeffrey Epstein
  • Elon Musk
  • Ehud Barak
  • Ghislaine Maxwell
  • Reid Hoffman
  • Peter Thiel
  • Larry Summers
  • Prince Andrew
  • Steve Bannon
  • Masha Bucher
  • Jason Calacanis
  • Michael Wolff
  • Bill Gates
  • Noam Chomsky
  • Tom Pritzker
  • Alan Dershowitz
  • Al Seckel
  • Kimbal Musk
  • Karyna Shuliak
  • Deepak Chopra
  • Ken Starr
  • Peter Attia
  • Jeremy Rubin
  • Neri Oxman
  • Marvin Minsky
  • Lawrence Krauss
  • Seth Lloyd
  • Boris Nikolic
  • Jean Luc Brunel
  • Lesley Groff
  • Sarah Kellen
  • Nadia Marcinkova
  • Darren Indyke
  • Mark Epstein
  • Emad Hanna
  • Joscha Bach
  • Rich Kahn
  • Cecilia Steen
  • John Amerling
  • Sultan Bin Sulayem
  • Matthew Hiltzik
  • Peter Mandelson
  • Jeffrey Epstein (alias)
  • Howard Lutnick

Jemini

What's on your mind, Jeffrey?
  • subdirectory_arrow_rightWhat can I help you find, Jeffrey?
Jemini in Workspace can make mistakes, so double-check responses. Learn more
JmailJPhotosJDriveJCalNew
JFlightsJVRJamazonJeminiJotifyJMessageJacebookJeffTubeNewJwiki
arrow_backOriginal EML Source
Subject:FW: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]
To:J Ep ([email protected])
From:G Maxwell
From Address:[email protected]
Date:01/13/2015, 06:01:40 PM
See bellow
I guess they are fishing to see if I can have allegation against me…this would take what ever slim shred of a life I have after this mess and kill it..

From: Philip Barden
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 12:58 PM
To: gmax
Subject: Re: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

You do not need proof for a police investigation just the allegation and then you have to respond to them.

Many people have had to deal with false allegations. It happens.

We want to make it clear that you have done nothing wrong. There is no downside to this.







Sent from my iPhone

On 13 Jan 2015, at 17:33, "G Maxwell" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:

Yes but even ambulence chasers have to have credible proof..
There simply is non as relates to me..

THE TERRAMAR PROJECT<http://theterramarproject.org/>
FACEBOOK<https://www.facebook.com/TerraMarProject>
TWITTER<http://twitter.com/terramarproject>
G+<https://plus.google.com/104195649525707945586/posts>
PINTEREST<http://pinterest.com/terramarproject/>
INSTAGRAM<http://instagram.com/theterramarproject>
PLEDGE<http://www.theterramarproject.org/pledge>
THE DAILY CATCH<http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/>
Simply is non

From: Philip Barden
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 10:03 AM
To: gmax
Subject: RE: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

I hear that, I am talking about ambulance chasers who create claims to try and get paid off. You wouldn’t be the first person to be the victim of false allegations made to try and get a settlement.

From: G Maxwell [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 13 January 2015 14:35
To: Philip Barden
Subject: Re: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

Philip, I don’t see any way for any police investigation in UK as there is simply no one who could say that..JE was infrequently at my house and I cannot think of anyone who came close to the age staying other than clearly virginia..I have never participated in anything at my house and there were no strange massages to my knowledge..I don’t recall if je ever stayed there with out me – it is possible of course but with all the publicity in the UK someone at this point would have to have come forward and claimed he did something there? Then I would have to have been there and participated..it just didn’t happen…

THE TERRAMAR PROJECT<http://theterramarproject.org/>
FACEBOOK<https://www.facebook.com/TerraMarProject>
TWITTER<http://twitter.com/terramarproject>
G+<https://plus.google.com/104195649525707945586/posts>
PINTEREST<http://pinterest.com/terramarproject/>
INSTAGRAM<http://instagram.com/theterramarproject>
PLEDGE<http://www.theterramarproject.org/pledge>
THE DAILY CATCH<http://theterramarproject.org/thedailycatch/>


From: Philip Barden
Date: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 at 7:11 AM
To: gmax
Subject: FW: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

FYI – he takes my point. I will review the attached before our call.

From: Martin G. Weinberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 13 January 2015 11:53
To: Philip Barden; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

Dear Philip, thank you for your response. Nowhere is the “presumption of guilt” more intense than in the sex with minors arena. I wish you and Ghislaine all the best and remain available to you if in anyway I can help. I am attaching last night’s filing by Professor Dershowitz that hopefully will lead to a Government filing strongly opposing the original motion to expand the Crime Victims case. Best, Marty

From: Philip Barden<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 5:03 AM
To:'Martin G. Weinberg'<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

Dear Marty

Thank you for email.

I am an advocate of your approach and my client did not make any statement in response to the 2011 and 2014 allegations and weathered the storm.

The landscape here has changed as there have been a number of high profile UK child abuse prosecutions. It is very important that Ghislaine is not viewed as in any way complicit in any such crimes in the UK, as if a complaint were made to the UK police then that is likely to start an investigation, provided there is jurisdiction. I am not concerned in this regard by VR allegations as she was not a minor in 2001.

The UK press are now reporting numerous other allegations and stating that Ghislaine engaged in direct abuse of minors. My concern is that in this feeding frenzy such allegations will be made – people will jump on the band wagon. I have experience of this happening. A firm credible denial puts space between Ghislaine and the allegations.

There are options other than a direct statement.

I am grateful for your wise words and will try and find a path that achieves my objective without the risks you refer to.

Kind regards

Philip

From: Martin G. Weinberg [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 12 January 2015 21:17
To: Philip Barden; [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

Dear Philp, I am now at a computer having reviewed the draft statement. I would urge you on the basis of years on involvement in the crime victim federal litigation as Jeffrey Epstein’s primary counsel and on years of monitoring state civil litigation that involved motions to produce documents, many depositions under oath, many demands for admissions, and the seeking of punitive damages to make sure that any media statement by Ms Maxwell be framed in a way to avoid becoming the predicate of any future defamation action whether under UK or US law. Statements such as “the allegations...are untrue” and specific paragraphs reciting as fact certain factual representations would risk such a lawsuit if UK law parallels US law even if every statement made by you could later be supported. Further, the more that Ms Maxwell says in a statement, the more she invites subpoenas in the event she is ever in the United States. My experience with statements considered in the past by Mr. Epstein is that whenever any were made on his behalf many years ago, they simple caused more questions, more attention, and did not serve their purpose in minimizing or extinguishing the media frenzy. That is why Mr. Epstein has not responded himself to the 2014 accusations and why he did not respond to the 2011 accusations emanating from the same accuser. As I said in an earlier email, commenting on failures of the US Police to contact Ms Maxwell only invites such contact. Statements about being sure they seized computers and cameras only reinforces the media’s zeal to learn if they did and what the contents were (they did not). I urge consideration of a statement that says that although Ms Maxwell would want to address all of the recent accusations, given the ongoing legal proceedings in the US, her legal counsel have advised against it and she is following their advice or a similar statement
Best, Marty

From: Philip Barden<mailto:[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 11:10 AM
To:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Attorney Privileged Communication - subject to mutual interest privilege [IWOV-Matters.FID782702]

Dear Marty

Here is our proposed release.

The bath tub allegation we won’t make without me seeing the tub and having photographic evidence to prove the lie.

We don’t attack the lawyers only VR and this will only be released in England to English press.

What do you think?

Kind regards

Philip




________________________________

This email is intended for the addressee named within only. It may contain legally privileged or confidential information. If you are not the named individual you should not read this email and if you do so, you must not under any circumstances make use of the information therein. If you have read this email and it is not addressed to you, please notify [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> and confirm that it has been deleted from your system and no copies made.

This Firm is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under the name of Devonshires Solicitors and registration number 0049857. This Firm does not accept service by electronic mail or facsimile. A list of partners, together with further legal statements, is available upon request or at www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html<http://www.devonshires.co.uk/terms-and-conditions/legal-notices.html>

Devonshires Solicitors, 30 Finsbury Circus, London EC2M 7DT tel +44 (0)20 7628 7576 fax +44 (0)20 7256 7318

Where instructions have been given by Devonshires Solicitors to a barrister to work on a client’s matter, we notify you, on behalf of that barrister, that you have the right to make a complaint about the service provided by that barrister or about the conduct of their Chambers. A copy of the barrister and / or their Chambers’ complaints procedure may be obtained by contacting the Senior Clerk of that Chambers, whose contact details can be found online, or from us. Complaints may be made direct to the barrister / their Chambers. Please note that there may be a time limit for bringing your complaint. You may also have the right to ask the Legal Ombudsman to consider your complaint at the end of the complaints process. Information on complaints to the Legal Ombudsman, including the details of strict time limits to bring a complaint, may be found at http://www.legalombudsman.org.uk.

The Devonshires Foundation is proud to support Action for Kids (reg. charity 1068841), Wide horizons (reg. charity 1105847), and Theatre Royal Stratford East (reg. charity 233801) during 2013/2014. Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.