Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00212233DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00212233
Pages
2
Persons
5
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

From: To: Cc: Subject: RE: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:52:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Yes. I think that I have a set of what they have. 1 also have stored emails and historical correspondence binders. From: Se To: Cc: Subject: RE: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit (USAFLS) (USAFLS) Thanks In terms of the e-mails that may appear in their pleadings, do you happen to have those somewhere so we can have a look at what may end up in the pleadings? Thanks. From: USAFLS) Se To: • • Cc: Subject: FW: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit Good evening, everyone. I have attached what was filed in the District Court, and below is Judge Cassell's latest correspondence. I will let you digest and we can talk tomorrow. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Lee, Dexter (U Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: follow up today's filing

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: To: Cc: Subject: RE: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:52:49 +0000 Importance: Normal Yes. I think that I have a set of what they have. 1 also have stored emails and historical correspondence binders. From: Se To: Cc: Subject: RE: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit (USAFLS) (USAFLS) Thanks In terms of the e-mails that may appear in their pleadings, do you happen to have those somewhere so we can have a look at what may end up in the pleadings? Thanks. From: USAFLS) Se To: Cc: Subject: FW: follow up today's filing -- re Victims' Rights Suit Good evening, everyone. I have attached what was filed in the District Court, and below is Judge Cassell's latest correspondence. I will let you digest and we can talk tomorrow. From: Paul Cassell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 2010 8:39 PM To: Lee, Dexter (U Cc: Brad Edwards; (USAFLS) Subject: follow up today's filing EFTA00212233 Dear 1. Via PACER, you will have seen the pleading that we have filed today. We are saddened that the U.S. Attorney's Office has not seen fit to make any concession to us, while at the same time asking us to delay filing our pleadings. Nonetheless, as a show of good faith, we are delaying filing our motion so that we can continue discussions with your Office. 2. As noted in our pleading — and as this e-mail will serve to confirm — while we are willing to continue discussions with you, we respectfully request that you immediately begin preparing your response to our motion so that if it becomes necessary for us to file it, your response can be filed quickly as well without any delay. 3. You have previously promised to review our statement of facts and tell us which facts are being disputed — and to work with us to narrow the range of disputes. As you know, we would like to work with you quickly on that effort. Could you get back to us by Friday, October 29, 2010, on that point and then have a telephone conference call with us on that date to work out the disputed facts? 4. This e-mail will also serve to confirm our request, previously raised in our October 22, 2010, letter to you, for access to correspondence relevant to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2's claims. We have not heard back from you on whether you intend to give us access to this information and, if not, what is the basis for withholding that information. 5. Our October 22, 2010, letter also indicated our surprise at the suggestion that we need to file some sort of civil complaint to resolve this matter. We explained why such an approach was, to our knowledge, not standard procedure in CVRA cases. Could you please advise as to what mechanism you think we need to deploy to bring this matter to a conclusion. 6. Your e-mail today takes the position that this CVRA case is a "civil" case and therefore that CVRA rights (like the right to confer) need not be provided to Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2. We don't understand this position. In 2007-08, Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 were advised by your office that they had CVRA rights in the Epstein case. Our CVRA motion is clearly filed in connection with that case. Do you think we need to re-docket our case so that it links directly to the CVRA case that you were providing notices about. If so, could you let us know what you think is the proper procedure for making that linkage. 7. While we would like to resolve these particular items with you quickly, in addition we would like to meet with the U.S. Attorney to discuss how to best move forward on this case on the morning of November 8, 2010 - if that is a convenient date for the U.S. Attorney. Thanks for your prompt attention to these issues. We look forward to working with you and others in the office to try and resolve this matter in a way that is fair to all concerned. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Co-Counsel 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 Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: [email protected] http://www.law.utah.eduiprofilesidefault.asp?Personl0=57&name.Cassell Paul 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, the person responsible to deliver it to 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. Thank you. EFTA00212234

Related Documents (6)

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

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
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

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

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

Subject: Re: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019

From: To: Subject: Re: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 23:27:22 +0000 Ha, really? In that case pretty sure I've seen the filing but will take a look. Thanks Sent from my iPhone On Jul 31, 2019, at 7:24 PM, ) < > wrote: That article is a reference to a government filing from over a month ago (Spencer Kuvin seems especially interested in being quotes in belated but inflammatory fashion on these issues) — but in any event, the NDGA filing from then is attached. From: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 17:14 To: Subject: FW: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 It looks like NDGa just filed something in the CVRA litigation — do you have a copy by any chance? From: Sent: Wednesday, July 31, 2019 5:12 PM Cc: Subject: SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 SDNY News Clips Wednesday, July 31, 2019 Contents Public Corruption. 2 Epstein. 2 Collins. 18 Securities and Commodities Fraud. 20 Stewart 20 Thompson. 22 Pinto-Thomaz. 24 Narco

25p

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.