Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00205183DOJ Data Set 9Other

S.J. QUINNEY

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00205183
Pages
2
Persons
7
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

U„ S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. You were nice enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 in December 2010 on that case, and we appreciate that. At the conclusion of that meeting, I also provided you with a letter presenting my grave concerns about possible improper influences being brought to bear on your Office during its negotiation of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (For your convenience, I attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibili

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.
U„ S.J. QUINNEY COLLEGE OF LAW THE UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Wifredo A. Ferrer United States Attorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act. You were nice enough to meet with Jane Doe #1 in December 2010 on that case, and we appreciate that. At the conclusion of that meeting, I also provided you with a letter presenting my grave concerns about possible improper influences being brought to bear on your Office during its negotiation of the Jeffrey Epstein non-prosecution agreement (For your convenience, I attach a copy of that letter.) It was my understanding that you deemed my allegations serious enough to forward my letter to the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) for further investigation, and it was my impression that OPR was going to look into the allegations raised in my letter. I must say that I was surprised to receive a letter five months later from OPR indicating that my concerns were not being investigated. On May 6, 2011, OPR stated that it was their policy "to refrain from investigating issues or allegations that were, are being, or could have been addressed in the court of litigation, unless a court has made a specific finding of misconduct by a DOJ attorney ... or there are present other circumstances: 0PR stated that my allegations fell into the category of allegations that were being litigated because Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were raising these issues in their CVRA case. Accordingly, OPR indicated it was not going to review the allegations that I presented. I am writing now to request the opportunity to meet with you further and to pass along additional information in support of my concerns. I wanted to follow up with you to make sure that someone was looking into my allegations about improper influences affecting your Office's decision to accord Jeffrey Epstein an extraordinarily lenient plea. It may well be that OPR has some policy precluding an investigation. But will your Office then investigate these issues? I am also writing to alert you to additional information that continues to lead me to believe that something was rotten with the way this case was handled. 1 www.law.utah.edu • Main Office 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 • Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-0730 EFTA00205183 As you may know, was a senior prosecutor and supervisor in your Office when the non-prosecution agreement with Jeffrey Epstein was approved. It is our impression that he was directly involved in supervising the Epstein investigation as the former Chief of the Criminal Division of your Office. It has been our understanding for quite some time that he frequently corresponded with Epstein's attorneys, especially Lily Ann Sanchez, during the plea discussions, and it is our understanding that he left your Office around the time the non-prosecution agreement was signed. Our private investigator has recently learned thaleft your office to work at a New York law firm representing white collar criminals. He also learned that quite expensive apartment in New York City is located in close proximity to real estate properties (specifically condos) owned by Jeffrey Epstein. The location o apartment, his role during the Epstein negotiations, and his departure immediately after the NPA was signed, leads us to believe thaand Epstein may have had a business or other relationship either during or after time in the Office. If that is the case, then we would appreciate you providing the information that you have in that regard voluntarily, as opposed to us having to conduct formal discovery to get it. As you also know, Judge Marra has recently ordered discovery to proceed in this case. We obviously would like for that process to go as smoothly as possible and want to avoid becoming involved in true adversary litigation with your Office. On behalf of our clients, we just want to get to the bottom of this, and we feel safe in assuming that you do too at this point For all these reasons, I am writing to request another chance to meet with you about our concerns and about making the discovery process go smoothly. Thank you in advance for considering this request I would be happy to provide any other additional information that would be useful to you. Sincerely, Paul G. Casse I cc: Assistant U.S. Attorne cc: Assistant U.S. Attorne EFTA00205184

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 1 of 14

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 290 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/20/2015 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. 08-80736-CIV-MARRA JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. RESPONDENT'S OPPOSITION TO JANE DOE #3 AND JANE DOE #4'S CORRECTED MOTION PURSUANT TO RULE 21 FOR JOINDER IN ACTION Respondent United States, by and through its undersigned counsel, files its Opposition to Jane Doe #3 and Jane Doe #4's Corrected Motion pursuant to Rule 21 for Joinder in Action (D.E. 280), and states: I. PETITIONERS' MOTION TO ADD TWO ADDITIONAL PARTIES SHOULD BE DENIED AS UNTIMELY This action was commenced by Jane Doe #1 on July 7, 2008 (D.E. I). The Court ordered the Government to file a response by July 9, 2008, which was done. On July 11, 2008, the Court held a hearing on the emergency petition. At that hearing, Jane Doe #2 was added to the petition. Now, over six years into the litigation, petitio

14p
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 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT, REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF FACTS ARE CONTESTED, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COMES NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that their rights as crime victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) have been repeatedly violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, to request an evidentiary hearing to establish those violations if the U.S. Attorney's Office contests the underlying facts, and to request a brief schedule and a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. As recounted in more detail below, the victims have recently-obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Jeffre

29p
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

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 JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR FINDING OF VIOLATIONS OF THE CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS ACT, REQUEST FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING IF FACTS ARE CONTESTED, AND REQUEST FOR HEARING ON APPROPRIATE REMEDIES COMES NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for a finding from this Court that their rights as crime victims under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA) have been repeatedly violated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, to request an evidentiary hearing to establish those violations if the U.S. Attorney's Office contests the underlying facts, and to request a brief schedule and a hearing on the appropriate remedies for these violations. As recounted in more detail below, the victims have recently-obtained correspondence between the U.S. Attorney's Office and defendant Jeffrey

29p

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.