Case File
efta-02625003DOJ Data Set 11OtherEFTA02625003
Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 11
Reference
efta-02625003
Pages
5
Persons
0
Integrity
Extracted Text (OCR)
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From:
jeffrey E. <[email protected]>
Sent:
Sunday, September 2, 2018 11:19 PM
To:
Lawrence Krauss
Subject:
Re: hi.. hope all is well
lets see justins billi on tues. then you will =eed prep for conciliation . and discipline !III 4o=A0 1.
you should ask
questions =C* not give answers. ex. how do you=come to the conclusion that ASU has jurisdiciton .? can you
define f=r me sexual harrassment . can you point to t=e regs. . the drawing. ? silly, =C* has any student
complained prior to buzz feed articel. h=s any faculty .... has any ...
=C* ask questions . as much as you can.
Ii>=A0 why did they choose to believe. .
as you =now the title 9 rules are being modified. I assume we will ope=ate
under the proposed regs. as you are on notice. of the changes. ??.=,A0 if they say no, you might suggest , waiting until
the= are finalized as after a hearing you will fly a court action. that =ill by definition. have the new rules in place by that
time. =C* You would like to work out a solution. =you woudl like to work out a solution. . over and over. =C* \
you need to appear reasonable. if yo= argue, you were awkward. . accidnet after accindent ski=t breast comments it
appears weak.. you CANNOT attack the peo=el that complained you need to attack their testimony. =C* I dont want
to atttack the women, I would like you to make you= own decision based on the facts. . etc. . the fac=s the rules and
the law. . if you appear misleading4k=A0 , one time its over. !!
you w=re not believeed the first time. you were too
defensiive.,=A0 . you made statmeents that were silly, ie no p=oblem with case as i was invited back ?!! . =ant say
that again. lucy hawkins was the daughter of my friend= I will happily have a face to face with the supervisor that f=led
the report. she never filed it when she heard it.40=A0 is that a failure to report issue. lucy w=nts no part of this.. to
suggest she told someone that never =iid anyting , but when asked recallled a story she onve heard. ?O=A0
does that
seem fair. quesiton quesi=on. . dont say ITS NOT FAIR !! I understand =he concern. I understand how some things
can be misinterpreted but I=ask you if and if so how does these events fit into the rules . law.=and regs. can you
explain it to me.
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 6:11 PM, L=wrence Krauss <
<mailto
» wrote:
=he is a journalist in Australia who was also on our Amazon cruise.. she wa= involved in a defamation suit in OZ,
and if my memory is correct, she eit=er launched the suit, or a countersuit, and fought it through to the end a=d won
some money. She is also a strong supporter and has become a f=iend of ours.
twitter.comilkraussl<=a> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
=A_twitter.com_Ikraussl&d=DQMFAg&c=AGbYxf.lbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41=qQuZFk4A-
1IxfAU&r=DB9LvLOIQiaqWcFOihHC0LZCntZCR8Xtq5BHKNWISTo&m=3DciP97mEbO4349G8_Nf9ISUp33Th7MWHYf6uw7
yUBPZc&s=mspp0SBZaPjpSBOPRbD2=XlzHCi4LgzTZ8KNgjNB8Kg&e=> I www.lawrencemkrauss.com
chttp://twitte..comilkraussl> <1=>
EFTA_R1_01836051
EFTA02625003
On Sep 2, 2018, at 2:31 PM, jeffrey=E. <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]»
wrote:
who is she??
On Sun, Sep 2, 2018 at 4:4= PM, Lawrence Krauss <
<mailto:[email protected]=» wrote:
here are the arguments against and for a suit, sent a few weeks ago =y Alison with experience,
from OZ..
=span class="m_-8984912549442869696m_5209989831675157983Apple-style-
span"=style="border-collapse:separate;font-family:Helvetica;font-style:normal;=ont-variant-ligatures:normal;font-
variant-caps:normal;font-variant-east-as=an:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-
height:normal;text=indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;border-=pacing:0px">
Lawrence M. Krauss
=rofessor
School of Earth & Space Exploration and Physics =epartment
Arizona State University, P.O. Box 871404, Tempe, A= 85287-1404
Research Office:
Assistant (Jessica):
<mailto
<=iv style="font-style:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:normal;=etter-
spacing:normal;text-align:starttext-indent:0px;text-transform:none;=hite-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;margin:0in
0in 0.0001pt;font-size:12pt;=ont-family:Calibri"> I twitter.com/Ikraussl
<https://urldefe=se.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-
3A
twitter.com_lkrauss1&d=DQMFAg&=mp;c=AGbYxfJbXK67KfXyGqyv2Ejiz41FqQuZFk4A-
1IxfAU&r=DB9LvLOIQiaqWcF=ihHC0LZCntZCR8Xtq5BHKNVR5To&m=ciP97mEbO4349G8_Nf9l5Up33Th7MWH'a6uw7y=B
P2c&s=mspp0SBZaPjp5BOPRbD2xXlzHCi4LgzTZ8KNgjNBBKg&e=> I w=w.lawrencemkrauss.com
chttp://www.lawrencemkrauss.comk
=C240
</=pan>
Begin forwarded message:
From: Alison B
Subject: <=>Re: hi.. hope all is well
=b>Date: August 17, 2018 at 11:55:55 PM PDT
<=div>
To: Lawrence Krauss
mailto
> >
Hello there, i am sorry to hear that= Lawrence. Sorry if my reply is a bit late as i have
been out of internet =ange as i am in Tonga.
2
EFTA_R1_01836052
EFTA02625004
That is terrible that ASU sent t=e report to Mel Thomson and horrible that she
distributed it. Don'= these people have any serious battles to fight? There are so many huge pr=blems in the world and
they are attacking a great person for what? Trivia.=lt is trivial.
Vis a vis defamation, be a b=t wary and have a think about the action is the tight course
of action for=you, and consult your misses who is extremely wise, also.
</=iv>
On the one hand if you can prove this woman lied, you may win a de=amation case
against her.
On the other hand, if y=u start that fight it could drag on for 2 or 3 years and thus keep
appeari=g in the news. Worse she could make extravagant claims and make demands in=the Discovery process which
would then get wide and repeated coverage.
Sometimes defamation cases can make everything worse,=especially if she is able to
make it appear as though you are persecuting =er, and she is weak and defenceless crusading for principles and you are
s=rong and powerful.
That would make it all worse.<=div>
On the other hand if you can prove she is a malici=us actor who really had it in for you
and can successfully win the PR war =s well as the legal battle then it may be worth it.
Ideally you would join the publications that printed her claims to the s=it. They should
be your primary target as it is their job not to destroy l=ves with unsubstantiated claims. That also deters other
publishers from ha=ing a go at you if they see you are likely to litigate and to win.
ASU determining against you complicates matters as people=can print what they have
determined in their report. However they are not = court. Are you able to take legal action against ASU in a court?
You need to appeal that decision and preferably take legal=action against ASU. I am not
sure how or under what legislation that could=fall. But i think that universities must be bound by some sort of laws
not=to unfairly dismiss or find against staff because their internal processes=are not courts. If laws are broken we have
courts to deal with them. This =s extra-judicial. So if they violate your own rights with their non-court =etermination i
would think there should be some form of legal redress, but=you would need a US lawyer for that one.
I think =ou need to attack this issue at the root
I would =ay nothing publicly until you have all your ducks in a row.
=/div>
I would first appeal the ASU verdict and hit that with everythin=. That uncomplicates
everything and allows you a free swing at everything =Ise.
Because these things take time, i would ask =he good defamation lawyer in Australia
(just pay the money and get the bes= advice) about whether you can file against the publishing houses that pub=ished
the false claims by wand then just add her on to the suit (but do=t make it about her)
With the point about it bein= someone you had met before and not a stranger in the
selfie, i would not =ely on this point as it is not really relevant to the case and she can jus= say "i was mistaken it wasnt a
malicious lie" and then sh= is off the hook on that point. Just stick to the actual best points, numb=r 5 sounds promising.
3
EFTA_R1_01836053
EFTA02625005
I think you really need to =ake an appointment with the lawyer that briefs Stuart
littlemore.
Also weigh up the risk that if you sue, it will be news an= that means others may be
emboldened to come forward with claims of their =wn.
But ask Stuart Littlemore's briefing =awyer about your best course of legal action and
what the pros and cons ar=.
It is complicated and there are lots of parts t= weigh up. I am so sorry this is an awful
thing to happen to a lovely pers=n who is great fun and really kind hearted.
Make =n appoint,ent, dont delay, talk to the good lawyer
And really good luck i am on your side.
=C24> please note
The information contained in this co=munication is
confidential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
c=nstitute inside information, and is intended only for
the use of the ad=ressee. It is the property of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or co=ying of this
communication or any part thereof is strictly prohibitedand may be unlawful. If you have
received this
communication in error,=please notify us immediately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected]/=>, and
destroy this communication and all copies thereof,
including =11 attachments. copyright -all rights reserved
plea=e note
The information contained in this communication is
confi=ential, may be attorney-client privileged, may
constitute inside inform=tion, and is intended only for
4
EFTA_R1_01836054
EFTA02625006
the use of the addressee. It is the prop=rty of
JEE
Unauthorized use, disclosure or copying of this
commun=cation or any part thereof is strictly prohibited
and may be unlawful. =f you have received this
communication in error, please notify us immed=ately by
return e-mail or by e-mail to [email protected] <mailto:jeevacation@gm=il.com> , and
destroy this c=mmunication and all copies thereof,
including all attachments. copyrigh= -all rights reserved
--0000000000004f33270574eba595-- conversation-id 329584 date-last-viewed 0 date-received 1535930323
flags 8590195713 remote-id 850190
5
EFTA_R1_01836055
EFTA02625007
Technical Artifacts (16)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
Domain
twitter.comDomain
w.lawrencemkrauss.comDomain
www.lawrencemkrauss.comEmail
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Email
[email protected]Phone
2625003Phone
2625004Phone
2625005Phone
2625006Phone
2625007Phone
287-1404Phone
5930323URL
https://urldefe=se.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=httpURL
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=httpRelated Documents (6)
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02512763
3p
DOJ Data Set 10OtherUnknown
EFTA01873814
3p
DOJ Data Set 11OtherUnknown
EFTA02624186
3p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01984612
0p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown
From: Lawrence Krauss <Ma>
2p
DOJ Data Set 10CorrespondenceUnknown
EFTA Document EFTA01871509
0p
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.