From: "-(USAFLS)"
Summary
From: "-(USAFLS)" To:" .(USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Responses to RFAs Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2013 18:11:17 +0000 Importance: Normal (USAFLS)" Sorry I had not gotten around to this before now. Do we want to discuss this, perhaps tomorrow afternoon, or have the two of you already finished it up? From: (USAFLS) Sent: Monde June 24, 2013 9:56 PM To: (USAFLS); (USAFLS) Subject: Responses to RFAs Hi and - Here is my stab at a response. There are a number that I cannot answer. Isn't the only real factual issue whether or not we conferred with the victims PRIOR TO SIGNING the NPA? The closest that they come to asking that is 13(b) and even that isn't quite right. Should we suggest that they send a revised RFA asking simply: "An attorney for the government did not confer with Jane Doe #1 or Jane Doe 42 prior to entering into the NPA." « File: Response to Requests for Admissions.docx » Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00209795
Persons Referenced (3)
“...not answer. Isn't the only real factual issue whether or not we conferred with the victims PRIOR TO SIGNING the NPA? The closest that they come to asking that is 13(b) and even that isn't quite righ...”
Jane Doe #1U.S. Attorney“...g into the NPA." « File: Response to Requests for Admissions.docx » Assistant U.S. Attorney Southern District of Florida EFTA00209795...”
Tags
Search 264K+ documents with AI-powered analysis
Extracted Text (OCR)
EFTA DisclosureRelated Documents (6)
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
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 70 EXHIBIT A PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS EFTA00208682 Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 224-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 2 of 70 PRIVILEGE LOG - WITH VICTIMS' OBJECTIONS Key to Objections (linking to Victims' Motion to Compel Production of Docments that Are Not Prig ileged Objection General Objections -- Inadequate Privilege Log Failure to Prove Factual Underpinnings of Privilege Claim Waiver of Confidentiality Government's Fiduciary Duty to Crime Victims Bars Privilege Communications Facilitating Crime-Fraud-Misconduct Not Covered Factual Materials Not Covered Documents Not Prepared in Anticipation of CVRA Litigation Attorney Client Objections - Ordinary Governmental Communications Not Covered Attorney-Client Relationship Not Established Deliberative Process Objections - Privilege Not Properly Invoked Final Decision Exempted from Privilege Qualified Privilege Ove
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOES #1 and #2 I UNITED STATES DECLARATION OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. I. 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 have represented Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I have also represented other girls who were sexually abused by Epstein. As a result of that representation, I have become familiar with many aspects of the criminal investigation against Epstein and have reviewed discovery and correspondence connected with the criminal investigation. I have also spoken to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 at length about the criminal investigation and their involvement in it, as well enforcement (or lack their of) of their rights as crime victims in the investigation. I also represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in the pen
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM
Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 28 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/25/2008 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: 08-80736-CIV-MARRA/JOHNSON JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. VICTIM'S MOTION TO UNSEAL NON-PROSECUTION AGREEMENT COMES NOW the Petitioners, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2, by and through their undersigned attorneys, pursuant to the Crime Victim's Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. Section 3771 ("CVRA"), and file this motion to unseal the non-prosecution agreement that has been provided to their attorneys under seal in this case. The agreement should be unsealed because no good cause exists for sealing it. Moreover, the Government has inaccurately described the agreement in its publicly-filed pleadings, creating a false impression that the agreement protects the victims. Finally, the agreement should be unsealed to facilitate consultation by victims' counsel with others involved who have
Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019
From: Cc: Bcc Subject: SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 Date: Tue, 09 Jul 2019 21:12:37 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: 2019_7-9.pdf SDNY News Clips Tuesday, July 9, 2019 EFTA00076625 Contents Public Corruption Epstein Complex Frauds lure Terrorism & Narcotics Wise Honest Matters of Interest Trump Can't Block Twitter Followers US Appeals Court Rules Judicial Review of Claims of Government Misconduct in Parallel Investigations Barr Says Legal Path to Census Citizenship Question Exists but He Gives No Details Public Corruption Epstein Who Protected Jeffrey Epstein? New York Times By The Editorial Board 7/8/19 On Monday, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York unsealed a 14-page indictment against Jeffrey Epstein, charging the wealthy financier with operating and conspiring to operate a sex trafficking ring of girls out of his luxe homes on Manhattan's Upper East Side and in Palm Beach, Fla., "among other locations."
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.