Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00206689DOJ Data Set 9Other

(USAFLS)"

From: (USAFLS)" To: "M, (USAFLS)" ctl Subject: RE: CVRA case - meeting in July Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:05:55 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree with everything you have written. As far as an update, I would probably just say that the investigation is continuing but we cannot share further. A. Halatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: MI, (USAFLS) SenSilda October 221_2010 1:02 PM To: El (USAFLS) Subject: FW: CVRA case - meeting in July Here is the latest from the plaintiffs. I don't believe we can provide any update on what is going on in the "new" Epstein case, unless the CVRA provides a right to be given status reports to a crime victim. Insofar as the rest of the e-mail, I'm going to respond to Judge Cassell by advising him that: (1) the government will agree to facts presented by plaintiffs if we agree that they are correct; (2) if plaintiffs can base a summary judgment motion based on that set of a

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00206689
Pages
3
Persons
3
Integrity

Summary

From: (USAFLS)" To: "M, (USAFLS)" ctl Subject: RE: CVRA case - meeting in July Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:05:55 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree with everything you have written. As far as an update, I would probably just say that the investigation is continuing but we cannot share further. A. Halatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: MI, (USAFLS) SenSilda October 221_2010 1:02 PM To: El (USAFLS) Subject: FW: CVRA case - meeting in July Here is the latest from the plaintiffs. I don't believe we can provide any update on what is going on in the "new" Epstein case, unless the CVRA provides a right to be given status reports to a crime victim. Insofar as the rest of the e-mail, I'm going to respond to Judge Cassell by advising him that: (1) the government will agree to facts presented by plaintiffs if we agree that they are correct; (2) if plaintiffs can base a summary judgment motion based on that set of a

Tags

eftadataset-9vol00009

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
From: (USAFLS)" To: "M, (USAFLS)" ctl Subject: RE: CVRA case - meeting in July Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:05:55 +0000 Importance: Normal I agree with everything you have written. As far as an update, I would probably just say that the investigation is continuing but we cannot share further. A. Halatia Assistant U.S. Attorney 500 S. Australian Ave, Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 Fax From: MI, (USAFLS) SenSilda October 221_2010 1:02 PM To: El (USAFLS) Subject: FW: CVRA case - meeting in July Here is the latest from the plaintiffs. I don't believe we can provide any update on what is going on in the "new" Epstein case, unless the CVRA provides a right to be given status reports to a crime victim. Insofar as the rest of the e-mail, I'm going to respond to Judge Cassell by advising him that: (1) the government will agree to facts presented by plaintiffs if we agree that they are correct; (2) if plaintiffs can base a summary judgment motion based on that set of agreed facts, then the government will respond to plaintiffs' motion. However, we will not agree to an evidentiary hearing for disputed facts. I will tell him the government intends to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution and failure to state a claim, insofar as the right to consultation claim. From: Paul racspii [manta Sent: FricEactober 22, 2010 12:50 PM To: M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: CVRA case - meeting in July Hi I= Still waiting to hear from you on what the current status is regarding the next criminal prosecution of Epstein. Whatsup? Also, regarding our pleading we are preparing to file, Brad reminds me of the great importance both you and we place on not "tipping off" Epstein to anything. Accordingly, we are thinking of taking out the paragraph in our pleading regarding the meeting we had with the FBI agents in July 2010. The main reason for that paragraph was to show that we have been proceeding diligently in moving this case along, including having a meeting with the FBI and waiting to hear back from them. Perhaps you would agree that that we have been proceeding diligently, in which case it would be not be necessary for us to include such a paragraph. EFTA00206689 Another option would be for us to file that paragraph under seal with the court, although that creates the possibility of some sort of unsealing (and or motion to unseal) that could be complicated. I'm around all day if you want to chat. . I hope to be able to send you a proposed statement of facts for you and to review later today. Paul 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: Email: http://www.law.utah.eduiprofilesidefault.asp?PersonID=S7&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. From: MI, (USAFLS) [mailto: Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 3:02 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: CVRA case Judge Cassell, Please feel free to call me We don't have any problem with agreeing that a factual assertion is correct if we agree that is what occurred. However, the government does not agree that it violated the CVRA, or that plaintiffs are entitled to any relief. I will be at the National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina, from October 17-21. I will have access to my e- mails but it may be difficult for me to respond quickly to what you send to me. Also, in determining whether your statement of facts is correct, I will need to consult with my colleague who handled the Epstein matter. From: Paul Cassell [mailto Sent: TuaOctober 12, 2010 3:47 PM To: M, (USAFLS) Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: CVRA case Hi (if I may), I believe we have communicated electronically before. As you probably know, I am co-counsel with Brad Edwards on the CVRA case concerning the Epstein (non) prosecution. You will have seen Judge Marra's order today asking for us to explain the current situation on the CVRA case by October 23. By October 23, we plan to file a motion asking the court to declare that there were violations of the CVRA. We will be doing that on the basis of a set of fact in the case, of course. EFTA00206690 I am writing to see if you would be interested in working with us on a stipulated set of facts? We will be in a position to give you a set of facts early to middle of next week. Would you be able to look at them quickly and let us know which facts are not dispute? Thanks in advance for your cooperation on narrowing the factual issues in this case and any idea for helping the case to progress smoothly. Sincerely, Paul Cassell Counsel for Jane Does 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: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?PersonID=S7&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. EFTA00206691

Technical Artifacts (2)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

URLhttp://www.law.utah.edu/profilesidefault.asp?PersonID=S7&name=Cassell
URLhttp://www.law.utah.eduiprofilesidefault.asp?PersonID=S7&name.Cassell

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

From: Brad Edwards

From: Brad Edwards To: Cc: Paul Cassell Subject: Re: Rescheduling Settlement Conference - bad date Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 20:39:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Inline-Images: image001.png; image002.png I will forward everything to Paul. is calling me Tuesday. I will use that time to relay everything to her and see where we are then. Sent from my iPhone On Jun 25, 2016, at 4:23 PM, wrote: Hi Paul — Thank you for your email. July 5th is bad for us, too, but I saw Judge Brannon to sign some search warrants yesterday and, although we didn't talk about this case, he mentioned how full his schedule was. I don't know that he is going to be inclined to move it, especially in light of Jane Doe #1's status. I am wondering if you think it is possible for us to finalize things without going back to court? Brad now has our complete packet and I think if we can get things resolved over the next week, then we can take the settlement conference off the calendar and move on to asking Judg

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit

Subject: Re: Lack of jurisdiction in the Eleventh Circuit Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 16:37:07 +0000 Importance: Normal It has been sent. Thanks. On Jun 28, 2013, at 12:09 PM, "Paul Cassell" <cassellp@law.utah.edu> wrote: > Could you pass along our pleading to whoever else in the Department is considering how to proceed on Epstein's interlocutory appeal? We believe our pleading makes compelling arguments that the Eleventh Circuit lacks jurisdiction, at this time, over any such appeal. Thanks! > Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell 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: 801-585-5202 Fax: 801-581-6897 Email: cassellp@law.utah.edu > http://www.law.utah.edu/profilesldefault.asp?PersonlD=57&name=Cassell,Paul > You can access my publications on http://ssm.corn/author=30160 > CONFIDENTIAL: This e

3p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subjec

Fr • < > Subjec :Deliberative t Process ec aratton rom am Justice - equest or wo ee xtension Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:59:47 +0000 Importance: Normal We have no objection, provided we get the following accommodation, which you already anticipated. We would request that your motion for extension of time give us an extension on our reply document, such that our reply would be due 10 days after the main Justice Department declaration that will be coming in two weeks. If you would include such language as well in any proposed order, saving us (and the court) drafting time, that would be very much appreciated. Paul Cassell and Brad Edwards for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 Paul G Cassell 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, you may not use, disseminate, distribute or copy this communication. If you have received this message

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing,

Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos £t Lehrman, P.L. 'Ovid Pam ftoisl pet WWW.PATITTOJUSTKE.COM 425 North Andrews Avenue • Suite 2 Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301 4 00 "ti e 6.‘ tk i r atire CalkAllfle alvdtr aIINNEV rar ,NYTTENNINIP PITNEY 'OWES 02 !F $003 , 50 0 000i3V, wit JAN 2i 2,2!3 .a4P En M ZIP t20-12E 3330 Dexter Lee A. Marie Villafatia 500 S. Australian Ave., Suite 400 West Palm Beach, FL 33401 EFTA00191396 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, 1. UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT EFTA00191397 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2, Petitioners, UNITED STATES, Respondent. SEALED DOCUMENT MOTION TO SEAL Petitioners Jane Doc No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2, joined by movants Jane Doe No. 3 and Jane Doe No. 4, move to file the attached pleading and supporti

71p
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

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.