Brad Edwards
Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Current status? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:39:53 +0000 Importance: Normal I'm sure Judge Marra is expecting us to file something soon. As you know, we have been prepared to file our pleading and do not want the Court to think that any delay is ours. We are also still willing to work with you on this matter; however, after the last word from you guys, we are not sure where we stand and with whom we are supposed to deal. has been asking for the status, and Brad and I would like to be able to tell her something soon. ny m orrnation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?Personl0=57&name=Ca sse II 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,
Summary
Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Current status? Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2011 18:39:53 +0000 Importance: Normal I'm sure Judge Marra is expecting us to file something soon. As you know, we have been prepared to file our pleading and do not want the Court to think that any delay is ours. We are also still willing to work with you on this matter; however, after the last word from you guys, we are not sure where we stand and with whom we are supposed to deal. has been asking for the status, and Brad and I would like to be able to tell her something soon. ny m orrnation would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for your help! Paul Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?Personl0=57&name=Ca sse II 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,
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?Personl0=57&name=CaRelated Documents (6)
Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM
Case 09-34791-RBR
Alleged Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) Shielded Jeffrey Epstein from a 53‑count indictment and kept victims uninformed
Alleged Non‑Prosecution Agreement (NPA) Shielded Jeffrey Epstein from a 53‑count indictment and kept victims uninformed The passage cites a specific non‑prosecution agreement that allegedly prevented a 53‑count federal indictment of Jeffrey Epstein and describes victim‑exclusion tactics. It names dates, a federal prosecutor’s draft indictment, and references to legal filings, offering concrete leads for further FOIA or court‑record requests. While the claim is not novel—Epstein’s NPA has been reported—it provides actionable details (Feb 10 2016 filing, Sept 2007 signing, June 30 2008 termination) that could be pursued to verify the agreement’s terms, the officials who negotiated it, and any potential misconduct by DOJ or the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Key insights: A 53‑count indictment prepared by federal prosecutors was never filed due to an NPA.; Victims were allegedly not consulted about the NPA, violating victim‑rights statutes.; The NPA was signed in September 2007 and remained in effect until June 30, 2008.
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.
The Palm Beach Post
EFTA01838551
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.