Epstein Secrets

oyees were convicted of this fraud. Wellcare then sought restitution for restitution that it had previously paid. Both the district court and later the Eleventh Circuit held that Wellcare was not a "victim" of the very crime is had admitted it was a part of. As the Eleventh Circuit noted, Wellcare made an "unqualif

. Attorney's Office 99 N.E. 4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jeffrey Epstein's Sexual Assault Victims in Jane Does 1 & 2 v. United States Dear Mr. Ferrer: My co-counsel, Brad Edwards, and I are writing with a simple request: That your Office continue to view Jane Does 1— 33 as "victims" of Jeffrey Ep

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Dear Mr. Ferrer: We are writing to you personally on behalf of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in one last effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pend

", to the extent discernable, every case brought under §2422(b) in this district includes use of the intemet. There are only four reported cases in the Eleventh Circuit involving use of the phones only: three of them concern telephone calls to travel agencies advertising overseas underage sex touriand involved expli

ourt's anticipated approval. Three months later, having received no response from the Government, victims' counsel sent an additional letter to Mr. Ferrer, requesting agreement to add an additional victim to the case — a young woman identified in current pleadings as Jane Doe No. 34: Dear Mr. Ferrer:

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: 801-585-5202 [email protected] Re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Dear Mr. Ferrer: We are writing to you personally on behalf of Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in one last effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pend

ts production in this case. With regard to item (1) — correspondence with Epstein, the Government withheld the correspondence pending a ruling from the Eleventh Circuit on Epstein's motion to stay production of these materials. With regard to the other items, the Government produced 14,825 pages of documents to the

egarding this case in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Miami, Florida. At on that date, Professor Cassell presented a letter to the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Ferrer, asking him to personally investigate what happened during the Epstein prosecution and how the victims were treated during that investigation. Based

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

ttorney Southern District of Florida 99 N.E.4th Street Miami, FL 33132 Re: Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 vs. United States, No. 09-80736 Dear Mr. Ferrer: We are writing to you personally on behalf of Jane Doe #1. and Jane Doe #2 in one last effort to try and narrow our range of difference in the pen

ur Office prevails on that Issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

PAUL G. CASSELL Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law Telephone: September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on leffre,y Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act

ur Office prevails on that issue, the victims would obviously have no claim under the CVRA. The victims would then pursue their appellate rights in the Eleventh Circuit. If, however, the victims prevail on that issue, then your Office would take "no position" on the remedy sought by the victims for the violation of

onald N. Boyce Presidential Profes.f Criminal Law Telephone: [email protected] September 29, 2011 Re: Follow-up on Jeffrey Epstein Dear Mr. Ferrer: As you know, Brad Edwards and I represent Jane Doe #1 and Jane Doe #2 in their efforts to protect their rights under the Crime Victims' Rights Act