Subject: RE: Proposed Schedule to Resolve CVRA Case within Twelve Months
Summary
Subject: RE: Proposed Schedule to Resolve CVRA Case within Twelve Months Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 18:24:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Perhaps this could be the vehicle where we focus the Court and victim's attention on the legal issues that can be resolved on agreed facts without having to flesh out all of the irrelevant points Cassell wants to address regardless of the fact that they do not advance his client's legal claims? In other words, if we are going to compress the schedule, then the issues need to be narrowed for resolution. I think we need to make clear to the Court that doing everything that Cassell would like in a compressed timeframe would not constitute a reasonable schedule. Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 2:10 PM u je : ropose c e ue o esove ase wi in we ve onths This is an e-mail from Cassell suggesting that the parties might propose a schedule to Judge Marra to resolve the case within the next 12 months, since they believe the statute of limitations will expi
Persons Referenced (3)
“... about Reinhart Paul, I forwarded your letter regarding Bruce Rinehart to the U.S. Attorney on March 3, 2014, the day it was received. We determined your request was not a matter our Office should ...”
Paul Cassell“...et by the Court, so we don't appear to be dragging our feet on purpose. From: Paul Cassell mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 1:50 PM Cc: Brad...”
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
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
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
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
From: Paul Cassell <cassellpglaw.utah.edu>
From: Paul Cassell <cassellpglaw.utah.edu> To: Paul Cassell <cassellp ilaw.utah.edu> Subject: RE: CVRA Case -- Epstein -- Moving Things Along Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2010 20:27:00 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Brad and I are writing to express our serious concern about how things are progressing on this CVRA case. This note is prompted by the fact that it has now been nearly a month since we proposed a new, specific statement of facts to you (a full draft was e-mail to you on October 23) — and, indeed, more than two years since we proposed a set of facts to you ... all without any answers. This latest letter is also required by the fact that I hadn't heard from Dexter for some time about how the Government's response to our proposed statement of facts was coming. We had hoped to reach agreement with you on the facts in advance of the October 27 filing date. We were advised, at the last minute, that was not possible. We have continued the last several weeks to try and achieve a s
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
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.