Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00207869DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Paul Cassell <I

From: Paul Cassell <I To: "•. (USAFLS)" < Brad Edwards < Cc: " • (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:26:17 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Brad and I look forward to hearing from you today (as you indicated that you would) about our proposal that the U.S. Attorney's Office will simple stand on the sidelines and not oppose our efforts to set aside the plea. I would hope that you would reiterate to the U.S. Attorney and the First Assistant, once again, how much we would like to avoid fighting with your Office so that we can focus our energies on Epstein the sex offender. We don't understand why the U.S. Attorney's Office feels that it needs to join this fight with the victims -- we hope that you will work to find a way to make this happen and avoid and entirely unnecessary clash between prosecutors and crime victims. We are happy to discuss with you ways to minimize any clash and any logistics that would be involved -- if we

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00207869
Pages
2
Persons
5
Integrity

Summary

From: Paul Cassell <I To: "•. (USAFLS)" < Brad Edwards < Cc: " • (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:26:17 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Brad and I look forward to hearing from you today (as you indicated that you would) about our proposal that the U.S. Attorney's Office will simple stand on the sidelines and not oppose our efforts to set aside the plea. I would hope that you would reiterate to the U.S. Attorney and the First Assistant, once again, how much we would like to avoid fighting with your Office so that we can focus our energies on Epstein the sex offender. We don't understand why the U.S. Attorney's Office feels that it needs to join this fight with the victims -- we hope that you will work to find a way to make this happen and avoid and entirely unnecessary clash between prosecutors and crime victims. We are happy to discuss with you ways to minimize any clash and any logistics that would be involved -- if we

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: Paul Cassell <I To: "•. (USAFLS)" < Brad Edwards < Cc: " (USAFLS)" Subject: RE: Avoiding an Unnecessary Fight Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2011 15:26:17 +0000 Importance: Normal Dear Brad and I look forward to hearing from you today (as you indicated that you would) about our proposal that the U.S. Attorney's Office will simple stand on the sidelines and not oppose our efforts to set aside the plea. I would hope that you would reiterate to the U.S. Attorney and the First Assistant, once again, how much we would like to avoid fighting with your Office so that we can focus our energies on Epstein the sex offender. We don't understand why the U.S. Attorney's Office feels that it needs to join this fight with the victims -- we hope that you will work to find a way to make this happen and avoid and entirely unnecessary clash between prosecutors and crime victims. We are happy to discuss with you ways to minimize any clash and any logistics that would be involved -- if we have agreement in principle on the concept. We are also available for a conference call today after 5:00 Florida time, if you would like further discussions. Sincerely, Paul Cassell, co-counsel 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: Fax: Email: http://www.law.utah.edu/profiles/default.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: Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:03 AM To: Paul Cassell. Brad Edwards Cc: I. (USAFLS) Subject: Request for Investigation Of Jeffrey Epstein Prosecution Brad and Paul, We enjoyed meeting in person with you and CW last Friday. I wanted to update you on the matters we discussed that day. First, Paul's request for an investigation of the Jeffrey Epstein prosecution has been referred to the Department of Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility. OPR is the component within the DOJ which investigates allegations of misconduct relating to the authority of DOJ attorneys to investigate, litigate, and give legal EFTA00207869 advice. The December 10, 2010 letter asks this office "to investigate through appropriate and independent channels the handling of the Epstein (non)prosecution." OPR is the appropriate and independent body within the DOJ to investigate and determine whether misconduct has occurred. Second, during the meeting on December 10, we advised you of the ethical standards applicable regarding a potential prosecution of Epstein by our office, and that a recusal would likely ensue. Given your request for an investigation of this Office's conduct in the Jeffrey Epstein case, and the referral of that request to OPR, we are seeking guidance from Dal on whether this office can continue to defend the Crime Victim Rights Act case. Third, we discussed the sequence in the litigation. You asked us that, in the event the court decides that the CVRA applied, in the absence of a formal charge, that the government concede (1) the U.S. Attorney's Office failed to comply with the CVRA; and (2) the district court should set aside the Non-Prosecution Agreement. In light of what has occurred, we cannot give you an answer on those two points. You had told us earlier that you would be filing a dispositive motion by December 17, 2010. I expect to find out whether our office needs to recuse itself within the next week. I will be on leave from December 17-28, but will be back at the office on December 29. I am asking if you would defer filing any motion until after I return on December 29. Thank you. I can be reached by e-mail and cell phone, during my annual leave. EFTA00207870

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

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

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY JAMES EDWARDS

19p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Subject: Re: Government's Position on Page Limits

From: To: Cc: Subject: Re: Government's Position on Page Limits Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 01:46:34 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, You are welcome. The Southern District of Florida Local Rules do not distinguish between civil and criminal proceedings when it comes to the page length of a memorandum of law. S.D.Fla.L.R. 7.1(c)(2) limits a legal memorandum to twenty pages. The government has no objection to petitioners seeking leave to file a legal memorandum exceeding the page limitation by approximately fifteen pages. From: Paul Cassell Sent: Thursda March 17, 2011 08:40 PM To: Cc: Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Government's Position on Page Limits Dear 1. Thank you for the information sent today. 2. What is the Government's position on the page limits applicable to our "summary judgment" pleading — do you believe we are under the civil rules? Or under the criminal rules? Do you believe that we need to file a separate motion for a roughly 35 page pleading with roughly 19 pa

3p
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
Court UnsealedDepositionJul 31, 2020

[REDACTED - Survivor] Deposition May 2016

Case Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 of 89 EXHIBIT Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 2 of 89 GIUFFRE VS. MAXWELL Deposition [REDACTED - Survivor] 05/03/2016 _______________________________________________________________________ Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. 216 16th Street, Suite 600 Denver Colorado, 80202 303-296-0017 Agren Blando Court Reporting & Video, Inc. Page 3 of 89 Case 1:15-cv-07433-LAP Document 1090-32 Filed 07/30/20 Page 1 IN THE UNI

89p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

[REDACTED - Survivor] v. Alan Dershowitz – Allegations of Sex Trafficking, NPA Manipulation, and Defamation

The complaint provides a dense web of alleged connections between Alan Dershowitz, Jeffrey Epstein, former U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta, and the 2008 non‑prosecution agreement (NPA). It cites specif Roberts alleges she was trafficked by Epstein from 2000‑2002 and forced to have sex with Dershowitz. Dershowitz is accused of helping draft and pressure the government into the 2008 NPA that shielded

87p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 225-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 08/16/2013 Page 1 of 64 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE No. 1 and JANE DOE No. 2 v. UNITED STATES AFFIDAVIT OF BRADLEY J. EDWARDS, ESQ. REGARDING NEED FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS 1. I, Bradley J. Edwards, Esq., do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. Along with co-counsel, I represent Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 (as referred to as "the victims") in the above-listed action to enforce their rights under the Crime Victims Rights Act (CVRA). I also represented them (and several other victims) in civil suits against Jeffrey Epstein for sexually abusing them. I am also familiar with the criminal justice system, having served as state prosecutor in the Broward County State Attorney's Office. 2. This affidavit covers factual issues regarding the Government's assertions of privilege to more tha

64p

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.