Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00209209DOJ Data Set 9Other

Subject: RE: Jane Does

From To Cc Subject: RE: Jane Does U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:28:13 +0000 Importance: Normal Sure. I think I have all of the e-mails. I will collect them and forward them to you. Thanks. From Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:03 AM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Does v. U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation We are putting together the government's responses to the victims' request for production. One category of documents they seek are the requests for recusal of this office due to a conflict of interest, prompted by Cassell's December 10, 2010 letter asking for an investigation of possible government misconduct in the Epstein case. Shortly after receiving the letter from Cassell, I sought guidance from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office should be recused from the defense of the CVRA case. I was told that, since we were asserting only a legal argument, failure to s

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00209209
Pages
1
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

From To Cc Subject: RE: Jane Does U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:28:13 +0000 Importance: Normal Sure. I think I have all of the e-mails. I will collect them and forward them to you. Thanks. From Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:03 AM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Does v. U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation We are putting together the government's responses to the victims' request for production. One category of documents they seek are the requests for recusal of this office due to a conflict of interest, prompted by Cassell's December 10, 2010 letter asking for an investigation of possible government misconduct in the Epstein case. Shortly after receiving the letter from Cassell, I sought guidance from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office should be recused from the defense of the CVRA case. I was told that, since we were asserting only a legal argument, failure to s

Persons Referenced (1)

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 To Cc Subject: RE: Jane Does U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 15:28:13 +0000 Importance: Normal Sure. I think I have all of the e-mails. I will collect them and forward them to you. Thanks. From Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 10:03 AM To: Cc: Subject: Jane Does v. U.S. - Discovery Responses, Office Wide Recusal on Criminal Investigation We are putting together the government's responses to the victims' request for production. One category of documents they seek are the requests for recusal of this office due to a conflict of interest, prompted by Cassell's December 10, 2010 letter asking for an investigation of possible government misconduct in the Epstein case. Shortly after receiving the letter from Cassell, I sought guidance from EOUSA General Counsel on whether this Office should be recused from the defense of the CVRA case. I was told that, since we were asserting only a legal argument, failure to state a claim because the CVRA did not apply, that our Office need not be recused. I have the e-mails on our request, and EOUSA's response. In August 2011, our office requested recusal from the criminal investigation of Epstein, which was granted. I believe that request for recusal was submitted by the Executive Division. I need the e-mails and documents that were submitted, as well as ADAG Margolis' memo approving our Office's recusal. Any e-mail or other correspondence advising that the matter has been assigned to the Middle District of Florida would also be responsive to the request. We are invoking the attorney-client privilege for these communications. The e-mails and documents will only be submitted to the district court for in camera review. Can you direct me to where the criminal investigation recusal documents are located? Thanks. Dexter EFTA00209209

Related Documents (6)

DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

6p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 013-80736-Civ-Marra/Nlatthewman JANE DOE 1 AND JANE DOE 2, Petitioners, vs. UNITED STATES, Respondent. DECLARATION OF IN SUPPORT OF GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION TO PETITIONERS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT do hereby declare that I am a member in good standing of the Bar of the State of Florida. I also am admitted to practice in all courts of the states of Minnesota and Florida, the Eighth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of Florida, the District of Minnesota, and the Northern District of California. My bar admission status in California and Minnesota is currently inactive. I am currently employed as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of Florida and was so employed during all of the events described herein. 2. I am the Assistant United States Attorne

5p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM

9p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372172011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 1. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50

Case 9:08-cv-80736-KAM Document 50 Entered on FLSD Docket 0372112011 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA Case No. 08-80736-Civ-Marra/Johnson JANE DOE #1 and JANE DOE #2 v. UNITED STATES JANE DOE #1 AND JANE DOE #2'S MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING THE U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE NOT TO WITHHOLD RELEVANT EVIDENCE COME NOW Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 (also referred to as "the victims"), by and through undersigned counsel, to move for an order from this Court directing the U.S. Attorney's Office not to suppress material evidence relevant to this case. The Court should enter an order, as it would in other criminal or civil cases, requiring the Government to make appropriate production of such evidence to the victims. BACKGROUND In discussions with the U.S. Attorney's Office about this case, counsel for Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 inquired about whether the Office would voluntarily provide to the victims information in its possession that was mater

15p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

Case 9:08-cv-80119-KAM Du..ument 511 Entered on FLSD Docku, J3/29/2010 Page 1 of 11

11p

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.