Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00209764DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: Proposed Schedule to Resolve CVRA Case within Twelve Months

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00209764
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

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

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.
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 expire by the end of that period. The court has already acknowledged that it cannot order the government to prosecute Epstein. Even if the court finds the non-prosecution agreement was invalid because the CVRA had been violated, and sets it aside, the government still has the unfettered discretion to determine the appropriate action in the Epstein criminal case. If we don't agree to some proposed schedule, Cassell will again use that to argue how unreasonable the government is. I think the appropriate course would be to advise the Court the government will adhere to any reasonable time limits set 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 Edwards (bradepathtojustice.com) Subject: RE: thanks Thanks for the update — we look forward to hearing from EOUSA. As mentioned on the phone, Brad and I may be in touch with you soon about a schedule that would bring the case to conclusion within the next twelve months or so, which would allow our clients to make a presentation to the appropriate prosecutors about indicting Epstein (should we be fortunate enough to prevail on our argument for invalidating the NPA) — EFTA00209764 before the expiration of any applicable statute of limitations. We'd ask you to think about such a schedule that would work well from your perspective. Thanks again for the acknowledgment. Paul Paul G Cassell Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 11:38 AM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards (bradepathtojustice.com) Subject: RE: Confirm receipt? please forward to Mr. Ferrer this letter 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 handle, as you anticipated in the last paragraph of your March 3 letter. Accordingly, your letter was forwarded to the General Counsel's Office, Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, for a decision on what office your request should be referred. I also received your previous e-mail regarding whether we would voluntarily provide to you the confidential, non-public information learned by former We will not. Thank you. From: Paul CasteII [mallto:cassellpelaw.utah.edu] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2014 12:36 PM Cc: Brad Edwards (bradepathtojustice.com) Subject: RE: Confirm receipt? please forward to Mr. Ferrer this letter about Reinhart Can you confirm that you received the email below (and attached letter) from me? Can you also confirm that you received an email from me the week previous, asking whether you would voluntarily provide information about the Reinhart situation? I didn't get any acknowledgment from you, which was unusual. Just want to confirm that I sent those two emails to the correct email address. Thanks! Paul Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209765 nessage is intended only for the use of the addressee. munication. 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: Paul Cassell 1.0111.1( 12:25 PM Cc: Brad Edwards ([email protected]) Subject: please forward to Mr. Ferrer this letter about Reinhart I was mailing the attached letter to Mr. Ferrer via regular mail. But it occurred to me it might be faster if I also emailed it to you, in the hope that you could then email it along to him. The letter requests an investigation of Bruce Reinhart's false statement. The letter also mentions that we have requested information from you about Reinhart's false statement, but so far we haven't been provided any such information. You will see that point on page 3 of the letter, which is a reference to an email I sent you letter. Please feel free to look at that sentence and let me know if that posture changes. I assume that you aren't going to provide any more information about Reinhart, but obviously hope that I am wrong about that. In any event, thanks in advance for your help in forwarding this along to Mr. Ferrer. Sincerely, Paul Cassell for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 Paul G. Cassell EFTA00209766

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

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

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

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

2p
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

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

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.