To: "Paul Cassell ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Brad Edwards
To: "Paul Cassell ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Brad Edwards ([email protected])" <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting Prior to Filing Responses to Motions Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:17:35 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, The government's response to the initial motion for joinder in action is due on January 16, 2015. The government's response to Alan Dershowitz's motion for limited intervention is due on January 22, 2015. Earlier today, you requested that we meet before the government responses are filed. We can meet with you on Wednesday, January 14, or Thursday, January 15, 2015, in order to accommodate your teaching schedule. Please let me know which date works best for both of you. Thanks. EFTA00210970
Summary
To: "Paul Cassell ([email protected])" <[email protected]>, "Brad Edwards ([email protected])" <[email protected]> Subject: Meeting Prior to Filing Responses to Motions Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 23:17:35 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, The government's response to the initial motion for joinder in action is due on January 16, 2015. The government's response to Alan Dershowitz's motion for limited intervention is due on January 22, 2015. Earlier today, you requested that we meet before the government responses are filed. We can meet with you on Wednesday, January 14, or Thursday, January 15, 2015, in order to accommodate your teaching schedule. Please let me know which date works best for both of you. Thanks. EFTA00210970
Persons Referenced (3)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (2)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
[email protected][email protected]Related Documents (6)
Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM
Alleged Links Between Bradley Edwards, Rothstein’s Ponzi Scheme, and Jeffrey Epstein’s Non‑Prosecution Agreement
The passage suggests a chain of actors—Bradley Edwards, lawyer Alan Dershowitz, and the late financier Rothstein—who may have leveraged Epstein’s alleged non‑prosecution agreement for extortion or bla Bradley Edwards joined Rothstein’s firm in April 2009 and allegedly showed Epstein‑related documents Rothstein’s wealth is claimed to stem from a $1.2 billion Ponzi scheme running since 2005. Edwards
Dershowitz’s evasive discovery responses in Edwards v. Dershowitz case
Dershowitz’s evasive discovery responses in Edwards v. Dershowitz case The passage reveals a pattern of non‑compliance and vague objections by a high‑profile attorney in a civil suit, suggesting possible concealment of documents. While it provides specific dates and procedural details useful for follow‑up, it lacks concrete allegations of wrongdoing, financial flows, or involvement of powerful political actors, limiting its impact. Key insights: Discovery requests for “absolute proof” were served well before February 2015.; Dershowitz’s counsel promised production by Feb 23, 2015 but delivered no documents.; Responses were limited to generic objections and promises of “non‑privileged” documents.
Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated
Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it names well‑known legal figures, it provides no concrete financial transactions, dates, or new factual revelations beyond already public claims, limiting its investigative utility. However, the suggestion that a court record may be sealed to hide potentially damaging testimony offers a moderate lead for further document‑review and freedom‑of‑information requests. Key insights: Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential.; He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaign.; Dershowitz threatens perjury prosecution against accusers and seeks disbarment of opposing counsel.
Dershowitz seeks to seal Giuffre affidavit in Edwards‑Cassell defamation case, claims media attacks are fabricated
The passage hints at a possible concealment of evidence in a high‑profile defamation dispute involving Alan Dershowitz, a prominent attorney, and references the infamous Giuffre allegations. While it Dershowitz requests the court to declare portions of Ms. Giuffre’s affidavit confidential. He publicly denies the allegations on BBC Radio 4, framing them as a coordinated false‑story campaig Dershow
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.