From: Brad Edwards
From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Subject: RE: Jane Does v. U.S. -- Motion to Unseal Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:16:40 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.jpg I read the cases. I don't agree with your interpretation of the cases to the extent that you are saying that the dissemination of email correspondence between you and JE's attorneys will somehow avail an argument for JE's attorneys to make that his due process rights have somehow been violated. I started going line by line on your designations, but it is time-consuming and because I don't agree with your interpretation of the cases, I just don't see the point of going through each line and arguing points. Regardless, I have no problem with agreeing to redacting statute numbers as well as personal information (addresses, phone numbers, etc.). I hope this helps. Brad Edwards Civil Justice Attorney Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 301 f Become our fan on Facebook Please consider the
Summary
From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Subject: RE: Jane Does v. U.S. -- Motion to Unseal Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2011 14:16:40 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.jpg I read the cases. I don't agree with your interpretation of the cases to the extent that you are saying that the dissemination of email correspondence between you and JE's attorneys will somehow avail an argument for JE's attorneys to make that his due process rights have somehow been violated. I started going line by line on your designations, but it is time-consuming and because I don't agree with your interpretation of the cases, I just don't see the point of going through each line and arguing points. Regardless, I have no problem with agreeing to redacting statute numbers as well as personal information (addresses, phone numbers, etc.). I hope this helps. Brad Edwards Civil Justice Attorney Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P.L. 301 f Become our fan on Facebook Please consider the
Persons Referenced (2)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
(800) 400-1098Related Documents (6)
Case 9:08-cv-80893-KAM Document 217 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/13/2010 Page 1 of 7
Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater
Subjec
Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic message along with any/all attachments is confidential. This message is intended only for the use of the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message
EFTA02726140
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.