Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00206871DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: '

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00206871
Pages
3
Persons
6
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: ' To: Paul Cassell <I Cc: l!radEdwar" Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File - right to confer Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:10:59 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, The Acting U.S. Attorney stands ready to discuss with you and Brad the merits of this case and ways in which it can be resolved, but will not be speaking with you today regarding how the victims will respond to the order to show cause, or what the government is willing to stipulate to in the response. As an aside, I believe the reasonable right to confer under 18 U.S.C. 3771(aX5) applies to crime victims in their criminal cases, filed in U.S. District Court, not civil litigation the victims have initiated against the government. As to the proposed stipulation of facts, I received your e-mail containing those proposed stipulation facts on Saturday, October 23, 2010, at 3:25 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. I opened your e-mail some time after that. At 4:40 p.m, October 23, 2010, I forwarded your e-mail to Since I wa

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: ' To: Paul Cassell <I Cc: l!radEdwar" Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File - right to confer Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 22:10:59 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, The Acting U.S. Attorney stands ready to discuss with you and Brad the merits of this case and ways in which it can be resolved, but will not be speaking with you today regarding how the victims will respond to the order to show cause, or what the government is willing to stipulate to in the response. As an aside, I believe the reasonable right to confer under 18 U.S.C. 3771(aX5) applies to crime victims in their criminal cases, filed in U.S. District Court, not civil litigation the victims have initiated against the government. As to the proposed stipulation of facts, I received your e-mail containing those proposed stipulation facts on Saturday, October 23, 2010, at 3:25 p.m., Eastern Daylight Time. I opened your e-mail some time after that. At 4:40 p.m, October 23, 2010, I forwarded your e-mail to Since I was on travel from October 25-26, I did not have any opportunity to sit down and confer with regarding whether we could agree to some, or any, of the nineteen pages of proposed facts you submitted. Today, I told Brad Edwards that some of the facts are really legal conclusions or arguments, rather than statements of fact The statement that one could reasonably infer something from an e-mail is not a factual assertion, but an argument. There are a number of statements that suffer from this deficiency. I do not believe we can resolve these differences in the time remaining for you to file your document. Thank you. From: Paul CacwIl Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 5:01 PM To: M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File - right to confer mailto: Dear M, I. As you know, crime victims have the right to "confer" with the prosecutor on the case -- we respectfully request a chance to confer with the decisionmaker on this matter -- apparently the Acting U.S. Attorney. We would like to know why our very reasonable proposal has been turned down and why you are unwilling to work with us further. 2. We respectfully request that you explain how you have been prejudiced and therefore will not stipulate to lack of prejudice. 3. We respectfully request that you carry through on your commitment to us to review our statement of facts and indicate which facts you are objecting to and which you are not. As you know, we have to file today -- so please get back to me quickly. Thanks. Paul Cassell Paul G. Cassell EFTA00206871 Voice: Fax: Email: 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, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ----Original Message-- From: la (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 2:51 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards; Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File - fixed a couple of sentences mailto: Paul, Thank you for sending the revised document. I have spoken with the Acting U.S. Attorney on this matter. We believe that if the victims simply filed a response to the order to show cause, and deferred filing any motion for summary judgment, it would promote the process for the parties to meet and address mutual concerns. However, we will not stipulate that the government has not been prejudiced by the passage of time in this case from its initial filing in July 2008. ----Original Message-- From: Paul Cassell Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 4:10 PM To: Paul Cassell; M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards; Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File - fixed a couple of sentences mailto: I noticed that I missed a couple of sentences in the pleading I sent to you that made reference to the simultaneously filed declaration of Brad Edwards. This revision fixes those couple of sentences, making reference only to a soon-to-be filed declaration. Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Voice: ROC: Email: 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, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. From: Paul Cassell Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 1:50 PM To: ', (USAFLS)' EFTA00206872 Cc: 'Brad Edwards; Subject: RE: Proposed Pleading to File THE FOLLOWING COMMUNICATION IS A SETTLEMENT OFFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE 408 Dear (and =), Attached is proposed pleading that we would file, reflecting your request that we delay and reflecting your stipulation that the passage of time to this point has not prejudiced the U.S. Attorney's Office. I want to continue to remind your office of its obligation to use its "best efforts" to protect the rights of crime victims. 19 USC 377I(c) (I). I trust that as you review our proposed pleading you will bear that requirement in mind. I can be reached on my cell at As you know, we have to file today and are prepared to do so if we can't work something out At the same time, we would like to work cooperatively with your office to bring Epstein to justice — our revised pleadings are a step in that direction, while hopefully responding to the concerns that your Office has raised. Paul Cassell Counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah Voice: Fax: Email: 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, the person responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Thank you. ----Original Message-- From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:16 AM To: Paul Cassell Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: Conferring on Statement of Facts Before Wednesday's Filing mailto: I will be on government travel from October 25-26, 2010. If you need to reach me, please call me at Thanks. EFTA00206873

Related Documents (6)

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

To: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu>, "

From: To: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu>, " 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

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
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

Subject: Re: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019

From: To: Subject: Re: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:27:22 +0000 Ha, really? In that case pretty sure I've seen the filing but will take a look. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:24 PM, ) < > wrote: That article is a reference to a government filing from over a month ago (Spencer Kuvin seems especially interested in being quotes in belated but inflammatory fashion on these issues) — but in any event, the NDGA filing from then is attached. From: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 17:14 To: Subject: FW: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 It looks like NDGa just filed something in the CVRA litigation — do you have a copy by any chance? From: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 5:12 PM Cc: Subject: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 Contents Public Corruption. 2 Epstein. 2 Collins. 18 Securities and Commodities Fraud. 20 Stewart 20 Thompson. 22 Pinto-Thomaz. 24 Narco

25p

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.