Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00209304DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: '

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00209304
Pages
2
Persons
7
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: ' (USAFLS)" < To: mcassellp@law.utali edit' < ft" Cc: ' (USAFLS)" < Subject: Re: Deliberative Process Declaration from Main Justice - Request for Two Week Extension Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 03:45:04 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, Thanks very much. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Frida September 20, 2013 01:59 PM To: USAFLS • Brad Edwards ( < > Cc: . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Deliberative Process Declaration from Main Justice - Request for Two Week Extension Fii We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards fo

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: mcassellp@law.utali edit' < ft" Cc: ' (USAFLS)" < Subject: Re: Deliberative Process Declaration from Main Justice - Request for Two Week Extension Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 03:45:04 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, Thanks very much. From: Paul Cassell [mailto: Sent: Frida September 20, 2013 01:59 PM To: USAFLS • Brad Edwards ( < > Cc: . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Deliberative Process Declaration from Main Justice - Request for Two Week Extension Fii We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards 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: http://www.law.utah.edaprofiles/default.asp?PersonID=57&name.Cassell Paul You can access my publications on http://ssrn.com/author=30160 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, 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. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you. From: (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Friday, September 20, 2013 11:54 AM To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards (- Cc: . (USAFLS) Subject: Deliberative Process Declaration from Main Justice - Request for Two Week Extension Paul and Brad, I was expecting to file a declaration from the Department of Justice last Friday, September 13, 2013, in support of the government's assertion of the deliberative process privilege. When I did not receive the declaration, I assumed a decision had been made not to assert the deliberative process privilege. I went ahead and sought an enlargement of time to file EFTA00209304 the United States Attorney's declaration on deliberative process privilege for documents generated by the U.S. Attorney's Office, which you graciously did not oppose. I was incorrect in my assumption regarding the Department of Justice making a decision not to assert the deliberative process privilege. They do want to assert the privilege, and are determining the appropriate DOJ official to execute the declaration formally invoking the privilege. I will be seeking a two-week extension of time to file the DOJ's declaration, and I want to know your position on the motion. The government has no objection to petitioners receiving additional time to respond to the Dal declaration, after it is filed. I will be filing the United States Attorney's declaration today. Thanks for your consideration. EFTA00209305

Related Documents (6)

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

Subject: Re: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule

From: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 20:25:09 +0000 Importance: Normal 6:00pm is fine for me. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 15:22, Either is fine. I will be here late. From: Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 3:16 PM To: Subje : : o ion o ompe an S.J. rie ingc e ue wrote: I have a conference call at 5pm. It should be over by 6pm, if not earlier. Can we talk at 6pm or I can email you if my conference call ends earlier? From: Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:38 PM To: Subject: RE: Motion to Compel and S.i. Briefing Schedule You can get me on the line once alls in. I will be at my desk -= From Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:11 PM To: Cc: Subject: Re: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule I am out of class at 5:15 pm. What number shall I call? EFTA00211070 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:56, Can we talk later this afternoon? Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Cassell < Da

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: '

From: ' (USAFLS)" To: >, ' (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 19:38:15 +0000 Importance: Normal Hi I.— You can get me on the line once calls in. I will be at my desk — 41047 A. Vi&faller Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida From: M, (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, March 08, 2017 2:11 PM To:a (USAFLS) < Cc:a MI I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: Motion to Compel and Si. Briefing Schedule I am out of class at 5:15 pm. What number shall I call? Sent from my iPhone c On Mar 8, 2017, at 11:56, a, (USAFLS) > wrote: Can we talk later this afternoon? Begin forwarded message: From: Paul Cassell <a> Date: March 8, 2017 at 8:51:03 AM EST To: "Brad Edwards (USAFLS)" Cc: " I. (USAFLS)" '`= > (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Motion to Compel and S.J. Briefing Schedule Dear I'm writing to express some concerns about the Government's recent response to our most recent discovery requests and to request a stipulated bri

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell 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, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
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

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.