Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00014073DOJ Data Set 8Correspondence

EFTA00014073

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 8
Reference
efta-efta00014073
Pages
0
Persons
0
Integrity
Loading PDF viewer...

Summary

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
cEl == From: Brad Edwards • To: USAFLS , Paul Cassell Cc: ' (USAFLS)" ca> Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:49:17 +0000 Importance: Normal It looks ok. Go ahead and submit it. While we would disagree with your statement that our proposed order goes well beyond what is at issue, since it actually covers very thoroughly the ruling by Judge Marra yesterday, at this point we feel that time is of the essence and we will agree with you submitting your proposed order as is. I think we all heard Judge Marra and are thus all clear as to the terms of the protective order and what is required. I would prefer that there is some language that the protective order is entered without prejudice to petitioners (seems like it would go in paragraph b), but if you are unable to incorporate it in your order, then I am sure there is a record from yesterday that could be used to help us get relief from the protective order at a later hearing. Anyway, thanks for preparing the order. We will look out for the "agreement". Thanks From: (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Friday, August 15, 2008 1:24 PM To: Paul Cassell; Brad Edwards Cc: I . (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak Judge Cassell and Brad, I have incorporated the change suggested by Judge Cassell to paragraph (c). I also added language in paragraph (e), referring to other victims, which also provides for petitioners' counsel to promptly provide a copy of the acknowledgment to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The government has no doubts that counsel for petitioners will ensure the authorized recipients are aware of the protective order and agree to abide by it, prior to disclosure. We do not require the acknowledgment in writing prior to the non-prosecution agreement being disclosed to an authorized recipient. We believe the petitioners' proposed protective order goes well beyond what is at issue, the government's disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement, conditioned on limited dissemination of the document upon receipt by petitioners. Consequently, we believe the attached proposed order, incorporating your revisions, is appropriate for the task at hand. Thanks. From: Paul Cassell tmailto: Sent: Friday, August 15 2008 12:21 PM To: Brad Edwards. (USAFLS) Cc: .(USAFLS) Subject: RE: Draft Protective Order - slight tweak Hello and First, I don't know if we've been formally introduced. Nice to meet you ... electronically at least. EFTA00014073 Second, on the language -- As Brad mentioned, we need to see this document quite quickly in view of the Government's representations yesterday that Epstein is trying to ignore the agreement. As a result -- and in view of the difficulty of making immediate contact with our clients -- I propose one change. Instead of this: Prior to producing the documents to Petitioners' counsel, a copy of this Order must be provided to counsel and their clients, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of and agreement to abide by the terms of this Order, and who must provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. How about this: Before counsel for Petitioner's show the agreement to their clients or discuss the specific terms with them, they must provide a copy of this Order to Petitioners, who must review and acknowledge their receipt of and agreement to abide by the terms of this Order. Counsel for Petitioner's must promptly provide a copy of that acknowledgment to the USAO. I assume that the USAO is not concerned about us as attorneys somehow ignoring the Court's protective order, so this change would focus in on the non-law trained clients. Paul G. Cassell Ronald M. Boyce Presidential Professor of Law S. J. Quinney College of Law University of Utah Salt Lake a , UT 84112 EFTA00014074

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Wire Refreferring

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM

26p
House OversightUnknown

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit

Discovery Dispute Over Alan Dershowitz's Document Control in Defamation Suit The passage outlines a procedural battle over production of documents and metadata in a defamation case involving Alan Dershowitz. While it flags potential evidence that could expose communications or internal materials, it lacks concrete details about the content, dates, or parties beyond the litigants, limiting immediate investigative value. However, the mention of “control” and alleged refusal to produce metadata could merit follow‑up to determine what information is being withheld and whether it relates to broader controversies surrounding Dershowitz. Key insights: Plaintiffs allege Dershowitz is withholding documents and metadata under the claim of ‘control’.; The objection is framed as ‘word play’ and gamesmanship, suggesting possible intentional concealment.; Discovery objections focus on timeframe limits, implying plaintiffs seek records spanning an undefined period.

1p
House OversightUnknown

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.

1p
House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

FBI reports providing over 190,000 victim services in FY 2011 under VRRA

The passage merely cites routine victim‑services statistics and procedural discussion of the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act. It contains no specific allegations, financial flows, or misconduct in FBI provided >190,000 victim services in FY 2011, including status updates, compensation assistance, Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act (VRRA) requires pre‑charging notifications and services to vic

1p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

To: "Paul Cassell"

From: To: "Paul Cassell" Cc: ' "Brad Edwards" Subject: : ovemments osition on Several Pending Issues? Still Waiting for Answer Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 16:56:28 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, 1. Yesterday, I provided you with the name and phone number for OPR Acting Associate Counsel, who received your December 10, 2010 letter to Mr. Ferrer, asking for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution. 2. The government will not be making initial disclosures to plaintiffs, because we do not believe Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 applies to this matter. 3. The CVRA applies to the criminal case which has been filed in district court, where an individual is deemed to be a "victim," not any civil litigation which may be initiated to enforce those claimed rights. We do not believe there is any right to discovery in this case. Moreover, we do not believe that whatever Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann Sanchez may have said to this office, or what this office said to Kenneth Starr or Lilly Ann S

2p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Draft transcript excerpt mentions Jeffrey Epstein invoking the Fifth and a reference to Alan Dershowitz

The passage provides a vague, uncited reference to Epstein and Dershowitz refusing to answer questions in a hearing. It lacks concrete details—no dates, transactions, or specific allegations—making it Jeffrey Epstein allegedly took the Fifth Amendment during a court hearing. A question about Alan Dershowitz was raised, and he also invoked the Fifth. The excerpt is labeled as a rough draft and appe

1p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.