Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00206813DOJ Data Set 9Other

(USAFLS)" <=1MIIM>

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00206813
Pages
1
Persons
6
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: (USAFLS)" <=1MIIM> To: (USAFLS)" Cc: 'ar, 'at" . (USAFLS)" Subject: Conference Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:31:04 +0000 Importance: Normal Willy and Ben, Marie and I just finished a conference call with Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, attorneys for the victims. The objective of the victims is to have the Non-Prosecution Agreement set aside, and to have the federal government prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for the sexual exploitation of minors. Cassell agreed that the district court would have no authority to compel the Department of Justice to prosecute Epstein. Insofar as the victims' response to the order to show cause, which is due today, the victims would not agree to moving for an enlargement of time, because they feared it would make them look bad, in seeking further delay. Cassell said it would be a gesture of good faith for the government to agree not to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. When I said we wou

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)" <=1MIIM> To: (USAFLS)" Cc: 'ar, 'at" . (USAFLS)" Subject: Conference Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:31:04 +0000 Importance: Normal Willy and Ben, Marie and I just finished a conference call with Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell, attorneys for the victims. The objective of the victims is to have the Non-Prosecution Agreement set aside, and to have the federal government prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for the sexual exploitation of minors. Cassell agreed that the district court would have no authority to compel the Department of Justice to prosecute Epstein. Insofar as the victims' response to the order to show cause, which is due today, the victims would not agree to moving for an enlargement of time, because they feared it would make them look bad, in seeking further delay. Cassell said it would be a gesture of good faith for the government to agree not to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. When I said we would agree to withhold filing such a motion, during the pendency of the extension period(if granted by the court), Cassell said that would not be good enough, he wanted us to promise not to file such a motion at all. I told him I would not agree to that. Cassell then went on to say that such a motion would be lacking in merit, and would not be granted. I asked him why the victims were so concerned about the government filing such a motion, if it was so ill-founded. Cassell said the filing of such a motion would add to the "atmospherics" of delay by the victims. He even accused the government of "sandbagging" them. I told Cassell and Edwards that I would have to consult with the Executive Division on whether we would permanently forego filing a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. As it stands, the victims will file a joint motion to extend the period for filing the victims' response to the order to show cause (with our concurrence), only if the government agrees never to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. During this extension period, Edwards and Cassell would want to meet with the U.S. Attorney and Executive Staff regarding resolution of the case, to include a prosecution of Epstein. The issue is how important it is to our office to keep the victims from filing their documents with the Court today. The price of a joint motion to extend time is our forebearance from filing a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution. There is no guarantee that any meetings between our office and Cassell and Edwards will resolve this matter, given what they seek. We may be in the same position again thirty days from now. We told Cassell and Edwards we would get back to them early this afternoon. Marie and I are available to chat about this case. Thank you. EFTA00206813

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: "

From: " (USAFLS)" </O=USA/OU=FLS/CN=RECIPIENTS/CN= To: "0 (USAFLS)" < Cc: : T1SAFLS)" < (USAFLS)" < Subject: RE: Conference Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 16:38:19 +0000 Importance: Normal (USAFLS)" Sounds good. 11SSISItIllt ey 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: (USAFLS) Sent Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:37 PM To: InlSAFLS); Cc: 1.....USAFLS); ii(USAFLS) Subject: Re: Conference Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Great. I'll come down at 1:30. From: (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 12:35 PM To: (USAF SAFLS) Cc: =MOM (USAFLS); (USAFLS) SubjiaTITTC7arence Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards will be here at 1:30pm. Thanks. From: lirt (USAF' S) Sent Wall aOrEEE) 27, 2010 12:35 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Cc: (USAFLS); USAFLS) Sub -: on erence Call with Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards Thanks. MI is out of the District but I'm around. Can we talk at 1:30 OM we can call

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]>, "

From: To: Paul Cassell <[email protected]>, " Cc: Subject: RE: Voluntary Production of Materials - three ideas Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 00:47:46 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Paul and Brad: Thank you for your email. Here is where we are on your three requests. Your first request asks for the emails from Epstein's lawyers to attorneys within the U.S. Attorney's Office regarding the non-prosecution agreement. Our understanding regarding the status of the current litigation is that Judge Marra currently has motions pending before him addressing: (1) whether you can use the emails that you have already received from other civil cases in this litigation and (2) whether any work product privilege or other privilege applies to the additional email communications that you seek. Given the status of those motions, it would be imprudent and inappropriate to voluntarily produce the materials to you prior to receiving the Court's ruling on those pending issues. We will, however, un

7p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Virginia Roberts v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
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 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 v. UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. 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 represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to more tha

64p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Re: Government's Position on Page Limits

From: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Government's Position on Page Limits Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:46:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, You are welcome. The Southern District of Florida Local Rules do not distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings when it comes to the page length of a memorandum of law. S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(c)(2) limits a legal memorandum to twenty pages. The government has no objection to petitioners seeking leave to file a legal memorandum exceeding the page limitation by approximately fifteen pages. From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursda March 17, 2011 08:40 PM To: Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Government's Position on Page Limits Dear 1. Thank you for the information sent today. 2. What is the Government's position on the page limits applicable to our "summary judgment" pleading — do you believe we are under the civil rules? Or under the criminal rules? Do you believe that we need to file a separate motion for a roughly 35 page pleading with roughly 19 pa

3p

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.