Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00204925DOJ Data Set 9Other

(USAFLS)"

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00204925
Pages
3
Persons
4
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: (USAFLS)" To: " >, ' (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:11:50 +0000 Importance: Normal I will come on up. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursd December 01, 2011 11:05 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States Sounds fine. AUSA From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:00 AM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Shall we confer briefly at 1:30 to make sure we're on the same page and then call him? Is there any reason why we need to make this a scheduled conference call including Edwards, or should we just initiate the call to Cassell and let him decide if he wants to postpone it to bring in Edwards? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 10:17 AM To: USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. E

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009
Ask AI about this document

Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: (USAFLS)" To: " >, ' (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2011 16:11:50 +0000 Importance: Normal I will come on up. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursd December 01, 2011 11:05 AM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States Sounds fine. AUSA From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 11:00 AM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I Enited States Shall we confer briefly at 1:30 to make sure we're on the same page and then call him? Is there any reason why we need to make this a scheduled conference call including Edwards, or should we just initiate the call to Cassell and let him decide if he wants to postpone it to bring in Edwards? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursda December 01, 2011 10:17 AM To: USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Yes, I think we need to call him. Do you want to try for 1:30 since we have the time already set aside? Assistant U.S. Attorney Fax From: (USAFLS) Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2011 10:15 AM To: . (USAFLS); (USAFLS) EFTA00204925 Cc: (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States I just received a call from assistant. is canceling today's conference call; he is feeling a little under the weather and is not coming into the office today. She told me that he will call me tomorrow to reschedule. Sorry. Given that it is unlikely that we are going to have a substantive discussion with this week, do you think we should reach out and call Cassell back before the week is over? I admit that thought is also making me feel a little bit under the weather. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2011 7:35 PM To: USAFLM Subject: RE: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe Enited States Cc: .(USAFLS); (USAFLS); (USAFLS) We're on for 1:30 tomorrow. I'll set things up for a conference call at that time and send out the call-in information. Thanks, From: (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda November 29, 2011 6:11 PM To: USAFLM) Cc: .(USAFLS); (USAFLS); Subject: Telephone Conference re: Epstein & Jane Doe I. Enited States Hi, M. I hope you had a great Thanksgiving. (USAFLS) As we had previously discussed, I am contacting you to see if we can set up a telephone conference to address some of the outstanding matters that we need to discuss to complete the transfer of the criminal case to your district and meet our obligations under USAP 3-2.170.001. (I also left a message with your assistant earlier today.) Those matters include: the nature and scope of any charges/investigation that may potentially remain viable in the SDFL following the entry of the Non-Prosecution Agreement; the need to advise the FBI in connection with the agents' pending requests for grand jury subpoenas and their expressed intent to continue investigating allegations against Epstein, advice which in all likelihood will require informing the FBI agents about other USAOs that might be able to assist them in light of the grand jury evidence previously obtained; and the handling of the criminal case file. We ( who was previously assigned to the criminal investigation; who is handling the CVRA litigation; and me) can make ourselves available to confer with you after 10:30 tomorrow morning, tomorrow afternoon, or Thursday morning. If those blocks of time do not work, please let us know and we can make other arrangements to accommodate your schedule. Thanks, EFTA00204926 I United States Attorneys Office E-mail: EFTA00204927

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 99 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/2672011 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Plaintiffs, vs. UNITED STATES, Defendant. / ORDER THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiffs' Motion for Finding of Violations of the Crime Victims' Rights Act (DEs 48, 52), Plaintiffs' Motion to Have Their Facts Accepted Because of the Government's Failure to Contest Any of the Facts (DE 49), Plaintiffs' Motion for Order Directing the U.S. Attorney's Office Not to Withhold Relevant Evidence (DE 50), and Bruce E. Reinhart's Motion to Intervene or in the Alternative for a Sua Sponte Rule 11 Order (DE 79).1 All motions are fully briefed and ripe for review, and the Court has heard oral arguments on all motions. The Court has carefully considered the briefing and the parties' arguments and is otherwise fully advised in the premises. The Court is awaiting supplemental brie

14p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

CM/ECF - Live Database

CM/ECF - Live Database r Page 1 of 3 U.S. District Court Southern District of Florida (West Palm Beach) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 9:08-cv-80736-KA M Doe'. United States of America Assigned to: Judge Kenneth A. Marra Cause: no cause specified Date Filed: 07/07/2008 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant LRJ Date Filed # Docket Text 07/07/2008 1 EMERGENCY PETITION for Victim's Enforcement of Crime Victim's Rights Act 18 USC 3771 against United States of America Filing fee $ 350. Receipt#: 724403, filed by Jane Doe. (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 2 CERTIFICATE OF EMERGENCY by Jane Doe re 1 Complaint (rb) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/07/2008 3 ORDER requiring U.S. Attorney to respond to 1 Complaint filed by Jane Doe by 5:00 p.m. on 7/9/08. Signed by Judge Kenneth A. Marra on 7/7/08. (ir) (Entered: 07/07/2008) 07/09/2008 4 NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Dexter Lee on behalf of United States of America (

204p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. I. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I have represented Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I have also represented other girls who were sexually abused by Epstein. As a result of that representation, I have become familiar with many aspects of the criminal investigation against Epstein and have reviewed discovery and correspondence connected with the criminal investigation. I have also spoken to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 at length about the criminal investigation and their involvement in it, as well enforcement (or lack their of) of their rights as crime victims in the investigation. I also represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the pen

12p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-CI V-Marra/Matthewman JANE DOE # I and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE TO PETITIONERS' FIRST REOUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO THE GOVERNMENT The United States (hereinafter the "government") hereby responds to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's First Request for Admissions to the Government Regarding Questions Relevant to Their Pending Action Concerning the Crime Victims Rights Act (hereinafter the "Request for Admissions"), and states as follows:' I. The government admits that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida ("USAO") conducted an investigation into Jeffrey Epstein ("Epstein") and developed evidence and information in contemplation of a potential federal prosecution against Epstein for many federal sex offenses. Except as otherwise admitted above, the government denies Request No. I. The government's res

65p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 58

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 58 Entered on FLSD Docket 04707/2011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 AND #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. UNITED STATES' RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO JANE DOES #1 AND #2'S MOTION TO HAVE THEIR FACTS ACCEPTED BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S FAILURE TO CONTEST ANY OF THE FACTS IDE491 The United States, by and through the undersigned, hereby opposes Petitioners' Motion to have their "Statement of Undisputed Material Facts" accepted as true [DE49]. Petitioners argue that the Court should accept their Statement as true, despite its conclusory allegations and internal inconsistencies, solely because of the United States' failure to stipulate to the Statement. The Court should deny the motion because: (1) Petitioners have misstated that United States' efforts at reaching agreement on the Statement; (2) the "Undisputed Material Facts" are irre

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON IN RE: JANE DOE, Petitioner. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO VICTIM'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF CRIME VICTIM RIGHTS ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Response to Victim's Emergency Petition for Enforcement of Victim Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771, and states: I. THERE IS NO "COURT PROCEEDING" UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3771(b) Petitioner complains that she has been denied her rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771. In the emergency petition filed by the victim, she alleges the Government has denied her rights since she has received no consultation with the attorney for the government regarding possible disposition of the charges (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(5)); no notice of any public court proceedings (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(2)); no information regarding her right to restitution (18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(6));

5p

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.