From: Brad Edwards
From: Brad Edwards To: Subject: Re: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM Doe v. United States ofAmerica Status Report Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:40:04 +0000 Importance: Normal No Sent via BlacicBerry by AT&T From: > Date: n, ec -0500 To: Brad Edwards Subject: FW: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe v. United States of America Status Report Hi Brad — Just noticed the service list below. Is Jay Howell still representing the Petitioners? Thanks. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:22 AM To Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe v. United States of America Status Report This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CIVUECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants)
Summary
From: Brad Edwards To: Subject: Re: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-ICAM Doe v. United States ofAmerica Status Report Date: Fri, 17 Dec 2010 15:40:04 +0000 Importance: Normal No Sent via BlacicBerry by AT&T From: > Date: n, ec -0500 To: Brad Edwards Subject: FW: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe v. United States of America Status Report Hi Brad — Just noticed the service list below. Is Jay Howell still representing the Petitioners? Thanks. Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 From: Sent: Friday, December 17, 2010 10:22 AM To Subject: Activity in Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Doe v. United States of America Status Report This is an automatic e-mail message generated by the CIVUECF system. Please DO NOT RESPOND to this e-mail because the mail box is unattended. ***NOTE TO PUBLIC ACCESS USERS*** Judicial Conference of the United States policy permits attorneys of record and parties in a case (including pro se litigants)
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (6)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
9:08-CV-80736-ICAM9:08-CV-80736-KAM1-888-318-226056292158308257referencedRelated 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.