Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00208578DOJ Data Set 9Other

From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com>

From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com> To: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> " r" "Brad Edwards (bradgpathtojustice.com)" <brad@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:56:12 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the jurisdictional question you raise, and at the heart of the merits. They cannot be separated. The Court needs to look at our merits arguments on privilege to determine the jurisdiction issue. For this reason, we believe that the Court should address both issues without bifurcation. From: Paul Castel! [mallto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:20 AM To: Jack

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00208578
Pages
3
Persons
2
Integrity

Summary

From: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com> To: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> " r" "Brad Edwards (bradgpathtojustice.com)" <brad@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:56:12 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the jurisdictional question you raise, and at the heart of the merits. They cannot be separated. The Court needs to look at our merits arguments on privilege to determine the jurisdiction issue. For this reason, we believe that the Court should address both issues without bifurcation. From: Paul Castel! [mallto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:20 AM To: Jack

Persons Referenced (2)

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: Jackie Perczek <JPerczek®royblack.com> To: Paul Cassell <cassellp@law.utah.edu> " r" "Brad Edwards (bradgpathtojustice.com)" <brad@pathtojustice.com> Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MTD as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Date: Tue, 06 Aug 2013 17:56:12 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul, the problem with the alternative that you propose is that the jurisdictional issue and the merits issues overlap. You argue as to jurisdiction that Perlman does not apply because there is no privilege. And our argument on the merits is that there is a privilege. So privilege is at the heart of the jurisdictional question you raise, and at the heart of the merits. They cannot be separated. The Court needs to look at our merits arguments on privilege to determine the jurisdiction issue. For this reason, we believe that the Court should address both issues without bifurcation. From: Paul Castel! [mallto:cassellp@law.utah.edu] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 11:20 AM To: Jackie Perczek Brad Edwards (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: RE: Position on Motion to Treat MID as Equivalent to Jurisdictional Question Hi Jackie, Thanks for getting back to us so quickly. We have always appreciated your collegiality on these issues as well (and we know that your firm has quite an effective team put together). We've been wondering about the need for the filing of our brief while a contested (and, in our view, meritorious) jurisdictional issue is before the Court. In looking more carefully at the CA11 Local Rules, we notice that under the Rule 31-21(d), if the Court were to issue a jurisdictional question, that would stay the time for filing our brief for 30 days until the Court rules on jurisdiction. What would your position be if we restyled our motion along the lines of — Motion to Treat Victims' Motion to Dismiss and Subsequent Briefing as Equivalent to Issuance of a Jursidictional Question For Purposes of Briefing Schedule — i.e., our brief would not be due until 30 days after a court ruling on jurisdiction. That way, your brief would still be in and counted — does that resolve your concern? And Dexter, what is your position on all this? (Or can you provide the name and e-mail of the attorney handling the appellate issues?) I'm assuming that the Government does not want to have a brief due while the jurisdictional issue is pending. Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00208578 From: Jackie Perczek [mailto:JPerczek@royblack.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:03 AM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Re: Position on Motion for Expedited Ruling on Motion to Dismiss He actually takes very good care of me! The truth is that you've always been very prompt and cordial with me and I wanted to do the same for you. I know this is important to you so I wanted you to know we were looking at it and would respond quickly. Here's our position, please would you quote it in both of your papers: We object to the Court considering the motion for a stay and the motion to dismiss without also considering the merits of the appeal. We filed our merits brief early, two weeks before it was due, to facilitate the court's consideration of the substantive issues in an expedited basis. We do not object to the court ordering expedited briefing on the remaining briefs (response brief and reply brief) and an expedited oral argument schedule. --Jackie On Aug 6, 2013, at 8:52 AM, "Paul Cassell" <cassellp_@law.utah.edu> wrote: Hi Jackie -- Thanks! (And I hope Roy is paying you double overtime for answering case-related emails at 1 AM in the morning!). Paul cassellp@law.utah.edu You can access my publications on http://ssm.com/author=30160 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 in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply electronic mail and delete the original message. Professor Cassell is admitted to the Utah State Bar, but not the bars of other states. Thank you. From: Jackie Perczek [JPerczek@royblack.corn] Sent: Monday, August 05, 2013 11:08 PM To: Paul Cassell Cc: Brad Edwards (brad@pathtojustice.com) Subject: Re: Position on Motion for Expedited Ruling on Motion to Dismiss Hi Paul. I will have an answer for you tomorrow morning. --Jackie On Aug 5, 2013, at 6:43 PM, "Paul Cassell" <cassellp@law.utah.edu> wrote: Hi all, Thanks in advance for promptly providing your position on the attached motion we are working on . Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell for Jane Doe No. 1 and Jane Doe No. 2 EFTA00208579 EFTA00208580

Technical Artifacts (7)

View in Artifacts Browser

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

Domainbradgpathtojustice.com
Emailbrad@pathtojustice.com
Emailcassellp@law.utah.edu
Emailcassellp_@law.utah.edu
Emailjperczek@royblack.com
Emailjperczek@royblack.corn
URLhttp://ssm.com/author=30160

Related Documents (6)

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

From: Paul Cassell •ci

From: Paul Cassell •ci To: "IN (USAFLS)" ' Cc: , • (USAFLS)" USAFLS)" >, Brad Edwards Subject: RE: Judge Marra's Order Granting the Victims Motion to Compel Discovery Within 30 Days Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2013 00:46:56 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: ORDER-omnibus-wrapup.pdf [tried to send this earlier, but it may not have gone out] Dear We haven't seen the sealed order granting the Government's motion for stay either. (Have you?). But, in any event, Judge Marra's order on June 19, 2013 (DE 190) specifically stated that "The petitioners' motion to compel discovery from the Government [DE 130] is GRANTED. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of entry of this order, the Government shall . . . [produce various discovery]." For your convenience, I attach a copy of DE 190 ordering the Government to produce discovery within 30 days. So we are expecting to see you produce the bulk of our discovery on July 19, 2013, as specifically directed in DE 190 which granted our mo

2p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

26p
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
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

66p
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

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.