Subject: Re: Edwards Pottinger Touhy Requests
From To: Cc: " " )" Subject: Re: Edwards Pottinger Touhy Requests Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:22:07 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.png >, " (USANYS)" Got it. Thanks. On Oct 27, 2020, at 11:41 AM, Thanks very much wrote: We are not going to be able to respond by our meeting with Brad next week. From Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:03 AM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Edwards Pottinger Touhy Requests Hi all, >; >; I communicated our timing to Brad Edwards. He was not thrilled, but fine overall. He said that he would be meeting with around November 4 and 5, and so asked if we could have a response by then (framing that as more convenient, in light of this meeting). I told him I did not think so, that it would be later in November, but told him I would check in with you, in light of the meeting. Please let me know if we have any timing updates to offer him. Otherwise, I'll leave things with him as they are. Thanks, From: Se To: USANYS) Subject: RE: Edwards
Summary
From To: Cc: " " )" Subject: Re: Edwards Pottinger Touhy Requests Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2020 21:22:07 +0000 Inline-Images: image001.png >, " (USANYS)" Got it. Thanks. On Oct 27, 2020, at 11:41 AM, Thanks very much wrote: We are not going to be able to respond by our meeting with Brad next week. From Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2020 10:03 AM To: (USANYS) Subject: RE: Edwards Pottinger Touhy Requests Hi all, >; >; I communicated our timing to Brad Edwards. He was not thrilled, but fine overall. He said that he would be meeting with around November 4 and 5, and so asked if we could have a response by then (framing that as more convenient, in light of this meeting). I told him I did not think so, that it would be later in November, but told him I would check in with you, in light of the meeting. Please let me know if we have any timing updates to offer him. Otherwise, I'll leave things with him as they are. Thanks, From: Se To: USANYS) Subject: RE: Edwards
Persons Referenced (1)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (9)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
mariaeeplic.commariapeplic.comwww.epllc.com[email protected][email protected]Facsimile: 954.524.2822954-323-2074954.524.2820954.524.2822Related 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.