Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00211244DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Brad Edwards

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00211244
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg

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: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judge Marra for a hearing before Jane Doe #1 is returned to Tampa. Let's see how things look on Monday or Tuesday and then, if we need to go back to the judge, maybe we can jointly call chambers and plead our case. From: Paul Case-ell [manta: 1 10:54 AM T. :rad Edwards Cc: Subject: RE: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Hey I'm wonder if you could work with us on one thing -- both sides gave Judge Brannon a list of dates that would work, but he picked another date -- July 5. That date is awkward for me, because it would require me to rearrange long established family plans and travel on the the evening of the 4th of July. Would you be able to ask him for another date? I think Brad gave you bunch of dates that work for us -- and, I think, for you. Thanks in advance for any help you can extend. Paul EFTA00211244 Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law 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: Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 10:43 AM To: Brad Edwards; Paul Cassell Cc:l Subject: RE: Rescheduling Settlement Conference That is fine with me. Or if you want to keep the current date for now and see where we are next week, that is fine with me, as well. From: Brad Edwards rmailto Sent: Tuesda June 14 2016 12:28 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Subject: RE: Rescheduling Settlement Conference Apparently those dates don't work for Jay Howell. Orchestrating around this many schedules is difficult. Not impossible but maybe not necessary. By that I mean does it make more sense to inform Judge Brannon that we are communicating with one another to see if a resolution is possible without the need for mediator input? If there comes a point where we think the mediator could help then we can approach him then. In the meantime, we can continue discussions and see whether we are able to reach an agreement or not. Just an idea. Let me know what you think. <image001.png> Brad Edwards Board Certified Trial Attorney <image002.png> EFTA00211245 From: Sent: Tuesday, June 14 2016 11:56 AM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: Rescheduling Settlement Conference Hi Paul and Brad — We are available on July 21s1and July 22nd. Judge Brannon is on duty the weeks of July 25th and August Ist, and I recall from our last session that he does not schedule settlement conferences while he is on duty. We, of course, do not oppose a motion to reschedule. Please let me know if you need anything from me. Best regards Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos Et Lehrman, P. L. 0 O41 Au. Or EFTA00211246

Related Documents (6)

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: la,

From: la, (USAFLS)" To: (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: VR materials Date: Wed, 21 May 2014 13:56:21 +0000 Importance: Normal Yes. Shall we schedule it for 4:30 p.m.? Thanks. From: . I. (USAFLS) Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2014 9:40 AM To: M, (USAFLS) Subject: RE: VR materials — Do we need a call-in number? I don't think we can conference call all of these numbers. Thanks. From: IIM, (USAFLS) Sent: Tuesda Ma 20 2014 9:59 PM To: Cc: ; M I. (USAFLS) Subject: Re: VR materials Thanks. Please excuse my typographical error. Tomorrow is May 21. From: Brad Edwards fmailto. Sent: Tuesda May 20, 2014 09:54 PM To: USAFLS Cc: Subject: Re: VR materials >; (USAF'S) After 4:00 I can be reached on my cell. Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2014, at 9:44 PM, "MI, (USAFLS)" < > wrote: Paul and Brad, Are you available for a conference call tomorrow, May 22, after 3:00 pm, Eastern time? Thanks. From: Paul Cassell (mailto: Sent: Tuesda May 20, 2014 12:54 PM To: USAFLS); Brad Edw

4p
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

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:37:07 +0000 Importance: Normal It has been sent. Thanks. On Jun 28, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Paul Cassell" <cassellp@law.utah.edu> wrote: > Could you pass along our pleading to whoever else in the Department is considering how to proceed on Epstein's interlocutory appeal? We believe our pleading makes compelling arguments that the Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction, at this time, over any such appeal. Thanks! > Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell 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 > 332 South 1400 East, Room 101 Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 > Voice: 801-585-5202 Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu > http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesldefault.asp?PersonlD=57&name=Cassell,Paul > You can access my publications on http://ssm.corn/author=30160 > CONFIDENTIAL: This e

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

71p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Attorney Bradley Edwards alleges Jeffrey Epstein's non‑prosecution agreement, 5th Amendment tactics, and a unique George Rush tape as key evidence ...

The affidavit details a non‑prosecution agreement that shielded Epstein from federal charges, claims that Epstein repeatedly invoked the Fifth Amendment to block discovery, and describes a purportedly Epstein secured a federal non‑prosecution agreement that barred criminal charges for ~30 victims in All co‑defendants and Epstein invoked the Fifth Amendment, leaving plaintiffs with no substantive

23p

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.