EFTA01035469.pdf

From: John Pinette To: "Martin G. Weinberg" <I Cc: J Subject: Re: ATTORNEY CLIENT Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2019 23:44:22 +0000 As you've seen, as we get close to the third rail, my general presumption is to let lie the inaccuracy. But let's see how this nets out. Of the things JE needs at the moment, more trouble is not one of them. I would suppose it might be a good idea for the three of us to review together before we get JE on the phone. Best use of his time; helps us get a common POV where things line up. On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:40 PM Martin G. Weinberg < > wrote: 945 works if it works for JE. Flexible between 9 and 1030 John, We must make sure not to walk JE into a defamation case if he answers the or allegations or contempt for violating a confidential settlement agreement. Makes a full response hard. Leaving to you how to best answer mistakes without reinforcing what we don't dispute. Martin G. Weinberg, Esq. 20 Park Plaza Suite 1000 Boston, MA 02116 - Office - Cell This Electronic Message contains information from the Law Office of Martin G. Weinberg, E., and may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, please note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. From: John Pinette ‹ > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2019 7:32 PM To: Martin Weinberg •,: > Cc: Darren Indyke Subject: What do you think of scheduling a call tomorrow AM to walk through the New Yorker fact-checking EFTA01035469  with Jeffrey. He's happy to join. I'm happy to do it any time after 9:00 AM Eastern time. We obviously don't have to answer any questions we don't wish to address. It's a coup that you got them to send the questions via email. Congrats. JP JOHN PINETTE TEL: This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. Avast logo JOHN PINETTE TEL: EFTA01035470