To: "Paul Cassell"
To: "Paul Cassell" Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:24:20 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: Protective Order v2 doc _ _ . Judge Cassell and Brad, I have incorporated the change suggested by Judge Cassell to paragraph (c). I also added language in paragraph (e), referring to other victims, which also provides for petitioners' counsel to promptly provide a copy of the acknowledgment to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The government has no doubts that counsel for petitioners will ensure the authorized recipients are aware of the protective order and agree to abide by it, prior to disclosure. We do not require the acknowledgment in writing prior to the non-prosecution agreement being disclosed to an authorized recipient. We believe the petitioners' proposed protective order goes well beyond what is at issue, the government's disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement, conditioned on limited dissemination of the document upon receipt by petitioners. Consequently, we believe the att
Summary
To: "Paul Cassell" Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:24:20 +0000 Importance: Normal Attachments: Protective Order v2 doc _ _ . Judge Cassell and Brad, I have incorporated the change suggested by Judge Cassell to paragraph (c). I also added language in paragraph (e), referring to other victims, which also provides for petitioners' counsel to promptly provide a copy of the acknowledgment to the U.S. Attorney's Office. The government has no doubts that counsel for petitioners will ensure the authorized recipients are aware of the protective order and agree to abide by it, prior to disclosure. We do not require the acknowledgment in writing prior to the non-prosecution agreement being disclosed to an authorized recipient. We believe the petitioners' proposed protective order goes well beyond what is at issue, the government's disclosure of the non-prosecution agreement, conditioned on limited dissemination of the document upon receipt by petitioners. Consequently, we believe the att
Persons Referenced (2)
Tags
Ask AI About This Document
Extracted Text (OCR)
Technical Artifacts (1)
View in Artifacts BrowserEmail addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.
referringRelated Documents (6)
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
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
Filing # 35429605 E-Filed 12/11/2015 10:08:04 AM
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
Filing # 31897743 E-Filed 09/10/2015 12:44:35 PM
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
Forum Discussions
This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,400+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.