Skip to main content
Skip to content
Case File
efta-efta00212708DOJ Data Set 9Other

To: "Paul Cassell'

From: To: "Paul Cassell' Cc: Subject: RE: Possible Settlement/Other Details for Friday's Meeting Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:42:36 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, 1. We should have the remaining 302's for you at the meeting on Friday. As far as the exhibits which Brad requested, there is a DVD of an interview of which is not yet in our possession. We should have it for you at the meeting. Most of the other exhibits are not in our custody, and we believe are not relevant to the resolution of the CVRA case. Consequently, we will not be producing them. 2. I expect the following individuals from our office to be at the meeting: (1) Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney; (2 -irst Assistant U.S. Attorney; (3) \USA; and (4) me. 3. Insofar as joining an additional plaintiff, we oppose such a motion. The parties are close to filing dispositive motions in the case, and status has been known to the petitioners since the inception of the case. 4. As far as the p

Date
Unknown
Source
DOJ Data Set 9
Reference
EFTA 00212708
Pages
2
Persons
1
Integrity

Summary

From: To: "Paul Cassell' Cc: Subject: RE: Possible Settlement/Other Details for Friday's Meeting Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:42:36 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, 1. We should have the remaining 302's for you at the meeting on Friday. As far as the exhibits which Brad requested, there is a DVD of an interview of which is not yet in our possession. We should have it for you at the meeting. Most of the other exhibits are not in our custody, and we believe are not relevant to the resolution of the CVRA case. Consequently, we will not be producing them. 2. I expect the following individuals from our office to be at the meeting: (1) Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney; (2 -irst Assistant U.S. Attorney; (3) \USA; and (4) me. 3. Insofar as joining an additional plaintiff, we oppose such a motion. The parties are close to filing dispositive motions in the case, and status has been known to the petitioners since the inception of the case. 4. As far as the p

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: "Paul Cassell' Cc: Subject: RE: Possible Settlement/Other Details for Friday's Meeting Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 23:42:36 +0000 Importance: Normal Paul and Brad, 1. We should have the remaining 302's for you at the meeting on Friday. As far as the exhibits which Brad requested, there is a DVD of an interview of which is not yet in our possession. We should have it for you at the meeting. Most of the other exhibits are not in our custody, and we believe are not relevant to the resolution of the CVRA case. Consequently, we will not be producing them. 2. I expect the following individuals from our office to be at the meeting: (1) Wifredo A. Ferrer, United States Attorney; (2 -irst Assistant U.S. Attorney; (3) \USA; and (4) me. 3. Insofar as joining an additional plaintiff, we oppose such a motion. The parties are close to filing dispositive motions in the case, and status has been known to the petitioners since the inception of the case. 4. As far as the proposed stipulated statement of facts, the government believes many of the facts are not relevant to the legal determination of whether some or any of the rights in 18 U.S.C. 3771(a) attach prior to the filing of a charge in district court. While the government may not dispute that the fact is correct, we do not believe the fact is relevant. Back in October, you asked the government not to file a motion to dismiss for lack of prosecution, maintaining that such a motion would be ill-founded. When I asked why the petitioners were concerned about the government filing an ill-founded motion, your response was the "atmospherics." I took that to mean that such a motion would put the petitioners in a unjust light, which petitioners wanted to avoid. In the same manner, the government does not want to ascribe any import to facts which we believe to be irrelevant, by stipulating to those facts in a signed document, jointly filed with the petitioners. We are concerned that, if we stipulate to those facts, the district court may attribute more significance to those facts than the government believes is warranted. We can discuss this further on Friday. From: Paul rassen Sent: Tuesda December 07, 2010 12:41 PM To rds Cc: Sub ect: ssi e ett emen ter etails for Friday's Meeting Hi Brad and I and our clients are looking forward to the meeting on Friday. We wanted to touch base with you on a couple of points: 1. I took the liberty of drafting what a possible settlement of the factual disputes might look like, along the lines of what Brad and I were discussing with you last week. It is in the attached document. (Note: there are two documents — first one is a "clean" document; the second one is a "redline" document, showing all the changes — but the redlining is getting somewhat cluttered, so I thought a new clean document would be helpful). We wanted to get this proposal to you well in advance of the Friday meeting so that your office could see a very specific settlement proposal from us that would both allow you to litigate the issue of pre-indictment application EFTA00212708 of the CVRA while at the same time avoiding the need for us to quarrel with you over specific factual issues. We trust your office will be prepared to meaningful discuss this good faith proposal from us on Friday — a proposal which we think would allow the US Attorney's Office and the victims to properly become allies again rather than adversaries. 2. Could you tell us who you anticipate attending the meeting Friday from your office? Right now, we anticipate it will be Brad and me and likely= from our side. 3. Thanks for sending the 302 of .. to Brad this morning. Are the 302s for our two other clients on the way? And what is the status on our request for other information/materials? 4. would like to join our other two clients in the CVRA action. We are planning on filing a motion to that effect. We would like to indicate that the motion is not opposed. Do you have any opposition to such a motion? Thanks for continuing the discussions on all this. We look forward to a productive meeting on Friday. Paul Cassell Co-Counsel for the Victims Paul G. Cassell Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0730 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. EFTA00212709

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

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

Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now?

From: To: Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 17:58:02 +0000 Importance: Normal I did. She was driving and her phone was cutting out. I just sent her an emailing explaining how this all intersects and told her to hold off about making anymore contact wit o as to try to keep criminal vs. civil cases as separate as possible. From: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) (Ann.Marie.C.Villafana©usdoj.gov] Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 12:35 PM To: Pryor, Christina Jo Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? Did you tell her that is not a victim? Eshould only be classified as a witness. Assistant U.S. Attorne 500 E. Broward Blvd, Ft Lauderdale, FL 33394 From: Pryor, Christina Jo (FBI) Sent: Monday, December 14, 2009 11:53 AM To: Villafana, Ann Marie C. (USAFLS) Subject: RE: Are you free to call Paul Cassell now? I just talked with She said had identified=as a victim and per procedure, she made an initial contact introduci

1p
House OversightUnknown

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition

Alleged criminal extortion plot discussed during Alan Dershowitz's 2015 Broward County deposition The passage references a claim that Alan Dershowitz disclosed a criminal extortion scheme involving unnamed clients during a deposition, and mentions related defamation lawsuits. While the details are vague and unverified, the involvement of a high‑profile attorney and a federal courtroom provides a concrete lead (date, location, parties) that could be pursued. The claim is moderately controversial and potentially sensitive, but it lacks clear novelty and specific financial details, limiting its score. Key insights: Dershowitz allegedly told lawyers Brad Edwards and Paul Cassell that "your clients were involved" in a criminal extortion plot.; The statement was made on October 15, 2015, during a deposition in Broward County, Florida.; Bradley and Cassell had sued Dershowitz for defamation, and Dershowitz had filed a countersuit.

1p
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

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

66p
DOJ Data Set 9OtherUnknown

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

26p

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.